Matthew Dolman Attorney – Discriminating Against Staff, Facing Lawsuits (2023)

Matthew Dolman Attorney is an unreliable and shady lawyer. He is facing lawsuits for discriminating against his employees.

Discrimination in the workplace is a major issue and people like Matthew are the reason why this problem exists in the first place.

Before you consider doing business with Matthew Dolman, go through the article below. It will help you understand how crooked this attorney is:

Cases on Matthew Dolman Attorney

gnLkkAjs6j0A2xSYJRgsYQn8dSqWA41cXsqNI8vYDR5Cq7OFPejcLgTZbuCqzbI1OceubenGzgngcvJN653aHYdxoqlD24iiBPH25I6uQ hBtStf6oFQ lhYuYh aPnBr22S8RHunqSVYwGjIK0Cr2Q

There are three cases filed on Matthew Dolman Attorney by Paul Ritchie & Raquel Ritchie.

#1.CASE on October 19, 2020

Tn64jhQW2omRZINnZhR7Jsx gjLjS9uwabDH58ujA9u0DHcw3rmKSBJ7qB44g5PeIJwkiQLvxGobL

Upon the entry of the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss on December 10, 2020, THIS CAUSE was brought before the Court. 

The Report suggests granting of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and denying Counts of the Matthew Dolman Attorney Request to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

qTF83PilAhGaHUPSdQ0Eo RcTM QLddUyYzysiqIuHTdrjrCKhXgYQHeiatIbO1J13v1gEME03H7QG

It relates to Defendants'(Matthew Dolman Attorney) Motion to Strike and Seal Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ (Matthew Dolman Attorney) Motions to Seal and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Strike and Seal”), Defendants’  (Matthew Dolman Attorney) Renewed Motion to Strike and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Strike”).

 Defendant’s (Matthew Dolman Attorney) Motion to Strike and Seal Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint and Memorandum (collectively, the “Motions”). 

Following the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the Honorable Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, United States District Judge, has referred this case to me for decisions on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and the issuance of a Report.

The claimant had gone over the motions and the response. The deadline for filing a reply has passed without a response being sent. Having received further appropriate advice, the motions are denied for the grounds outlined in this document.

Case Background 

Paul Ritchie and Raquel Ritchie, the plaintiffs, filed an eight-count Amended Petition against the defendants, including Matthew Dolman Attorney on May 28, 2020. Plaintiff Raquel Ritchie gave notice of the voluntary dismissal of all of her claims on August 14, 2020. 

See also Review 2023

Plaintiff Paul Ritchie (“Plaintiff”) filed a Verified Amended Complaint for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and a Demand for Jury Trial on August 20, 2020, following the District Court’s permission (“Amended Complaint”). 

The plaintiff filed a verified second amended lawsuit for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and a demand for a jury trial on September 9, 2020, in agreement with the District Court’s permission (“Second Amended Complaint”).

The Matthew Dolman Attorney’s employment of Plaintiff and the termination of that employment are the subjects of the Second Revised Complaint’s federal and state causes of action. The Second Amended Complaint specifically makes claims of Wrongful Termination Based on Age Discrimination and Illegal Retaliation. That includes:

  • Unlawful Retaliation
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  •  Negligent Misrepresentation
  •  Promissory Estoppel 
  • Statutory Misappropriation of Image 
  • Common Law Unauthorized Use of Likeness 
  •  Restitution Measured by Quantum Meruit
  • Unjust Enrichment 
  •  Misclassification of Employee & Common Law.

The Complaint names Matthew Dolman Attorney collectively as “Sibley Dolman,” saying that they are “connected and interwoven through consolidation, merger and/or shared ownership and control and have otherwise abrogated their individual identities and/or acted in concert and/or are successors in interest.”

TAwDouuIjJo7H c12 rZTV2uUhkrklS9DOGkNoaqhWNLLxNja575Y8MEdW75lWKn6sEzdIWHNoImAj23wyp vZEEZV59STBtZRz9fulVidiYu5XTXRS6UAHqXEkHX9PXMIvuzSnnQleAn0oLuf qVEc

Conclusion of the case 

Thus, it is for the reasons listed here that it

It was ordered & adjudged that the defendant’s (Matthew Dolman Attorney)motions to seal, strike and seal, and strike are all denied.

This 19th day of October 2020, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is done & ordered.

#2. CASE on December 10, 2020

Sibley Dolman Personal injury lawyers, Matthew A. Dolman, Sibley Dolman, P.A., and Sibley Dolman Personal injury lawyers, LLC, filed an amended complaint and amended notice of removal for failure to state a claim. advising partial approval and partial denial. R&R objections must be made by 12/28/2020. dated 12/10/2020 and signed by Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss.

matthew dolman attorney

Conclusion of the case

The judge suggested that the motion to dismiss by the defendants be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated above. I specifically advise the following:

See also  Golam Sarwar Sarina Texas: Charged by Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Update 2023

After receiving a copy of this Report and Recommendation, the parties will have fourteen (14) days to file written objections.

Failing to immediately file objections will prevent the parties from challenging uncontested factual and legal conclusions in the Report on appeal, as well as the District Judge’s de novo determination of an issue covered in the Report.

in this Report, unless it is essential in the interest of justice on grounds of obvious error.

#3. CASE on February 19, 2021

h48UYcn3FUfCei APMqLn7lElWXijNySpgLl0P5wgQpEAPu zQrr9ngLmyK48jYOERy5 7xnmGG0CiI0L6oVEewNrgOF zRSyCH4MLtRPeEiMX7ZKv3z zo0NHdcyZ3WbmqGJXW6cacBVpYsRzSZIps


Y1j9JbTDYb6RDePC3EjpVTHzx t2RNJvxX6JYfRisw mX5Y0ulnw3sYyyjEryz DNetXyb7npqFpv5rVNqAgbtSTEpCaq3E3rz0CcuxjNMCrx4Ur 07qIm1lpMetESPiri3Lc2ot3q6HZjh74N8F5bw

Plaintiff began working as a paralegal for lawyer Brent Sibley and his company Sibley Law, P.A. in June 2016, and over time rose to the position of Chief Operations Officer, as stated in the Second Amended Complaint. 

While Plaintiff was still employed by Sibley Law, Brent Sibley merged his business with Matthew Dolman Attorney in October 2018 to create the combined Sibley Dolman firm. The Sibley Dolman firm then let Plaintiff go in March 2019, almost six months after the merger.

Plaintiff’s Settlement demand letter to Matthew Dolman Attorney

Brent Sibley and Matthew Dolman Attorney received the following assertions and requests in the plaintiff’s settlement demand letter through email:

(1)Several potential claims arising from his discharge from employment

(2) it directed Defendants to preserve evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s employment

(3) it attached a draft complaint and explained Plaintiff’s view of how the litigation would proceed

(4) it set forth the relevant legal framework for claims under the ADEA and Florida’s statutory equivalent

(5) it alerted Matthew Dolman Attorney to Plaintiff’s prior successful representation as a pro se defendant in federal court.

Defendant Matthew Dolman Attorney filed a complaint against Plaintiff with The Florida Bar for the unlicensed practice of law on October 29, 2019, which was eight days after Plaintiff sent the aforementioned demand letter and before Plaintiff filed his claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the current lawsuit.

See also  Go Global MLM: Ponzi Scheme You Must Avoid At All Costs

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was allegedly trying to act in the place of his wife Raquel concerning legal claims she was making against the Defendants. On or around December 19, 2019, the plaintiff responded to the bar complaint. The Florida Bar then concluded the case without addressing the complaint’s merits. The complaint filed by Defendant Matthew Dolman Attorney with The Florida Bar serves as the foundation for Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.

matthew dolman attorney

About Matthew Dolman Attorney – What He Claims to Be

N29nOYMYXlcjupqGk13UsIFGQ44HLCQvezLorSGILvn3wxJaKDgaLIEFFhluV pHlx8U88ONfabBCQJplB suLcDH2s4HkMSlRn0XOIKFXPFQTWB2vDd197lW7BofOHP7n8nmP39C5Ew f 1unf ms

Dolman Law Group, a personal injury and civil trial law practice in Clearwater, is led by Matthew Dolman, who also serves as its president and managing partner.

m2TyUcNxUiEY4YBG9GFZWDBRNshzUSR8sp3 xMjNSRYbFyfSk NZKrxK4 jhTBMuUhDU8ViO2J1sS8f23aZzidt t40qqagFs7HRAZQblPdclcQnfKQyguxYx qTVwX1ASJabmpi8mvD9d Pb4jasA

According to Matthew Dolman, a solicitor, a large portion of his practice is devoted to litigating wrongful death and catastrophic damage cases across Florida. 

In reality, he only claims to represent the clients who have suffered physical harm as a result of someone else’s or a business’s negligence. The Dolman Law Firm has never represented Florida insurance carriers’ interests and never will.

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply

Register New Account