Kelley Kronenberg Partner/Business Unit Leader Ejola Cook and Attorney Jacob Stein secured a significant procedural victory for Integrated Ventures, LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, successfully defending against a motion to dismiss filed by DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc. 

The case involves a complex maritime dispute arising from allegedly faulty exhaust system installation on the ALCHEMY, an 80-foot Baia motor yacht. The plaintiff seeks over $300,000.00 in damages, claiming that the marine contractor’s negligent work damaged the vessel’s hull, created defective exhaust systems, and resulted in an improper maritime lien that has prevented the yacht’s sale or charter use. 

The defendant filed a targeted motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint, which alleged breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The defendant argued that federal admiralty law preempts warranty claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act, citing precedents including F.W.F., Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corporation and Lady Di Fishing Team, LLC v. Brunswick Corporation. 

Ejola and Jacob crafted a persuasive opposition demonstrating that the warranty claims could proceed alongside the admiralty claims without conflict. Their arguments successfully countered the defendant’s preemption theory and preserved all avenues of recovery for their client. 

Judge Raag Singhal denied the Motion to Dismiss, allowing all claims to proceed to discovery and trial. This ruling preserves the client’s ability to seek damages under multiple theories of liability, including breach of contract, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and requests for declaratory relief regarding the disputed maritime lien. 

The decision ensures that Integrated Ventures can pursue its full range of claims against the marine contractor while maintaining the strategic advantage of proceeding in federal admiralty court. This ruling also helps other vessel owners seek damages for violations of their warranties. This victory demonstrates the importance of comprehensive pleading strategies in complex maritime litigation and the value of preserving multiple avenues for recovery in high-exposure cases.