Linkedin Instagram Facebook

Michael J. Dono

Partner

Miami

P | (305) 379-3686

F | (305) 379-3690

[email protected]

VCard
LinkedIn

Michael J. Dono is a partner in the Miami office of Hamilton, Miller, & Birthisel LLP and Chair of the Firm’s Appellate Law Practice Group. He specializes in handling civil appeals, writ proceedings, and similar matters in the appellate courts. He has argued and won dozens of cases in a variety of forums—including several federal circuits and Florida’s district courts of appeal. His win rate in the dozens of federal and state appeals he has argued in the past several years is over 75 percent.

Substantively, Michael’s experience includes several areas of law, including admiralty and maritime, arbitration, insurance coverage, premises liability, and general statutory interpretation. He has represented clients in numerous sectors, including communications, energy, insurance, maritime, technology, and local governments.

Michael began law practice in 2002. He is Board Certified in Appellate Practice. Only seven percent of eligible Florida Bar members, approximately 4,800 lawyers, are board certified. As of April 1, 2016, there are only 171 attorneys certified in Appellate Practice in Florida.

Practice Areas

Education

J.D., University of Miami School of Law

M.S., Finance, Florida International University

B.S., University of Miami

  • Dodaj v. Marriott Hotel Holdings, LP, et al., No. 1D 21-3721 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 23, 2022) – The First District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment entered against Plaintiff on all of her claims against Courtyard by Marriott relating to her personal injury claims after she was run over by an ATV at Jacksonville Beach.
  • Mitchell v. Ginley Lawn Serv. & Landscaping, Inc., et. al., No. 3D21-0779 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 23, 2022) – The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for lawn service company sued for injuries suffered by Plaintiff on county land the lawn company was contracted by the county to maintain.
  • Hernandez v. Sam’s E., Inc., No. 21-13039, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30015 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022) – Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment finding for Sam’s Club after concluding Sam’s Club did not have actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition on the store’s floor.
  • Mendelson v. Howard, No. 4D21-1552, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7258 (4th DCA Oct. 26, 2022) – The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s determination that Defendants Admiral’s Cove Townhomes at Harbor Islands Association, Inc., and its property manager, Dana Altman, were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida statute.
  • Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 48 F.4th 1222 (11th Cir. 2022) – The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal order because under Monell and its progeny, Plaintiff failed to properly allege a claim against The School Board of Miami Dade County, Florida because it did not plead the actions alleged were unconstitutional under a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by officers with final policymaking authority.
  • Fuentes v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd., 32 F.4th 1311 (11th Cir. 2022) – Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that summary judgment for the cruise line was proper because appellant-passenger had not presented sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether the cruise line had actual notice that the passenger or other passengers would attack him during disembarkation.
  • Cheruvoth v. SeaDream Yacht Club Inc., No. 20-14450, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30029 (11th Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) – Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court did not err in compelling arbitration over the parties’ dispute over deposits paid to charter a cruise vessel given the limited scope of review of agreements falling under the New York Convention and the presumption favoring arbitration.
  • Taylor v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 20-14754, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 23650 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) – affirming dismissal of suit against cruise line where the plaintiff failed to follow the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
  • Adams v. Paradise Cruise Line Operator, Ltd., 847 F. App’x 556 (11th Cir. 2021) -in a tort suit filed by the passenger of a cruise ship who slipped and fell on the bathroom floor, the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the ship owner because she failed to raise a genuine issue of fact indicating that the owner had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition in its stateroom bathroom.
  • Velazquez v. Rodriguez, 322 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) – The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding that where liability arises because of the employment relationship, Congress explicitly intended for the Longshore Act to be the exclusive remedy, and therefore, the plaintiff could not bring a negligence suit in a state court.
  • Wendy Donnelly v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, LP., Case No. 2:19-CV-14112 (In the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division Feb 2020) – affirming order granting summary judgment on the basis that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the liquid on the floor prior to the alleged incident which retailer did not owe a duty to warn of and the incident was not foreseeable.
  • Benedict v. Comcast of Colo./Florida/Michigan/New Mexico/Pennsylvania/Washington, LLC, 304 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) – The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in Comcast’s favor finding that the “going and coming rule” precludes Comcast as an employer from being held vicariously liable for its employee’s automobile accident while on the way to work.
  • Palavicini v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 787 F. App’x 1007 (11th Cir. 2019) – The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment finding for Wal-Mart in a customer’s slip and fall action because there was insufficient evidence to show that the store had constructive notice under Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1)(a) where the facts indicated that the liquid was not on the floor for a long period, and concluding that the store had constructive notice would require drawing impermissible inferences unsupported by the record.
  • Berbridge v. Sam’s E., Inc., 728 F. App’x 929 (11th Cir. 2018) – Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Sam’s Club because evidence that the liquid substance was “dark” or “dirty” was not enough for a reasonable jury to infer that the substance had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to charge the store owner with constructive knowledge of its presence.
  • Liberty Int’l Underwriters v. Frisky Lady Ventures, LLC, 237 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) – Securing reversal of order denying motion to compel arbitration.
  • Ceithaml v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 739 F. App’x 546 (11th Cir. 2018) – The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 1) district court properly granted summary judgment to Celebrity Cruises, Inc. on the issue of vicarious liability because the passenger failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the excursion zip-line operator was an actual or apparent agent of Celebrity; 2) the passenger failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact that Celebrity knew or reasonably should have known that the operator was unfit to operate the zip-line course because Celebrity diligently inquired into and reasonably chose the operator due to its good reputation, safety history, and maintenance of insurance; and 3) the passenger failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact that Celebrity knew and failed to warn about any allegedly dangerous conditions regarding the zip-line because it had diligently inquired into the operator’s fitness and history of incidents.
  • Acquaviva Ltd. v. Versa Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 246 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) – The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal based on forum non conveniens and the forum selection clause in the Parties’ Settlement and Release Agreement.
  • Orion Marine Constr., Inc. v. Carroll, 918 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2019) – Securing reversal of the district court improper dismissal of the shipowner’s limitation action against the claimants under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act because it erred in holding that all of the claims, oral and written, and to whomever communicated, constituted written notice to the owner under 46 U.S.C.S. § 30511(a) as only the written complaints submitted in writing to the shipowner, either directly or through its agent, satisfied section 30511(a)’s written notice requirement, and even if all oral and written complaints were considered, their notices failed the Doxsee/McCarthy test because they did not reveal a reasonable possibility that the claims, even considered in the aggregate, would exceed the value of the shipowner’s barges.
  • Internaves de Mex. s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda S.S. Corp., 898 F.3d 1087, 1090 (11th Cir. 2018) – Where Part I of the parties’ international maritime charter party contract provided for “London arbitration, English Law,” Part II provided for arbitration in New York under U.S. law, and the contract also provided that in the event of a conflict, Part I’s provisions would prevail over those of Part II, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred ordering arbitration within its own district because the parties had failed to provide for a specific arbitral forum, instead of honoring the contract’s conflicts provision and ordering arbitration in London under English law.
  • Celebration Cruise Line, LLC v. Dobrianskiy, 225 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) – The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying Celebration’s motion to dismiss a personal injury suit based upon forum non conveniens because the \ court did not conduct the analysis required by Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) or provide any explanation for denial.
  • Trotter v. 7R Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 2017) – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court properly exercised its power to dismiss the case under the forum non conveniens doctrine when it dismissed the plaintiff-seaman’s claims under the Jones Act and federal maritime law claims of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.
  • Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 683 F. App’x 786 (11th Cir. 2017) – In a suit by a cruise passenger against Celebrity Cruises, Inc. and a Costa Rican company providing zip-lining activities during a cruise stop based on injuries he sustained during an offshore zip-lining excursion, the foreign company was properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because there was no specific jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute since the alleged tortious activity occurred outside of Florida and there was no connection between a particular contract and the passenger’s cause of action.
  • Veverka v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 649 F. App’x 162 (3d Cir. 2016) – affirming summary judgment finding against passenger who sued cruise line for negligence, breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.
  • Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) – holding that operator of shore excursions in Belize for cruise ship passengers did not engage in continuous and systematic business activity in Florida, and thus general personal jurisdiction over operator under Florida’s long-arm statute or due process clause was not warranted.
  • 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.
  • Eller-I.T.O. Stevedoring Co., L.L.C. v. Pandolfo, 167 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) – Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s order that compelled an outside-attorney for Eller-ITO assisting in Eller-ITO’s representation to be deposed by Plaintiff.
  • Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Morris, 155 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) – The Third District Court of Appeal granted insurer’s petition for writ of certiorari because insurer could sever an underlying Plaintiff’s coverage claim against the insurer from the Plaintiff’s tort claim against the insured because the non-joinder statute mandated the direct action against the insurer be severed to prevent jurors from discovering the insurer could be held responsible for some or all of the judgment in Plaintiff’s negligence suit against the insured.
  • 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.
  • Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) – Securing reversal of trial court order that required production of insurance company Castle Key’s claims file because the order directed the production of Castle Key’s claims file when the issue of coverage was still in dispute, and therefore, the order departed from the essential requirements of law.
  • Amaran v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 107 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) – The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting Royal Caribbean’s Motion for Summary Judgment addressing passenger’s claim for negligent response to medical emergency that resulted in alleged brain injury.
  • Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 695 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2012) –concluding that 46 U.S.C. § 30509, which prohibits common carriers transporting passengers and making use of a U.S. port from contractually limiting liability for personal injury claims, does not bar common carriers from using a forum-selection clause selecting a venue where domestic law, if applicable, would effect a limitation of liability.
  • Farris v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 487 F. App’x 542 (11th Cir. 2012) – affirming summary judgment finding in favor of cruise line and holding that nothing prevents a cruise line from contractually shortening the statute of limitations for bring suit if the ship enters no U.S. port.
  • E & H Cruises, Ltd. v. Baker, 88 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) – reversing trial court’s finding of jurisdiction over a Grand Cayman based cruise line shore excursion provider.
  • Haughey v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 55 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) – The Third District Court of Appeal found that the trial court was correct not to provide any other relief other than to put into effect that which had been remanded by the appellate court and the holding that the trial court was correct in declining to grant Plaintiff’s request that the complaint be amended.
  • Freeman v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 49 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) – The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment finding for Royal Caribbean after determining that Royal Caribbean was under no duty to warn the Plaintiff-passenger of the obvious risks of participating in a game aboard ship.

  • Best Lawyers®, Admiralty and Maritime Law (2024)
  • Florida Super Lawyer, Rising Star, Law & Politics, 2010, 2012
  • Florida’s Legal Elite, Florida Trend, Appellate Practice
  • Top Attorneys in Florida, Appellate, American Registry

  • Florida
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
  • United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States

  • Dade County Bar Association
  • Cuban American Bar Association
  • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
  • National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF)