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
There are three cases filed on Matthew Dolman Attorney by Paul Ritchie & Raquel Ritchie.
#1.CASE on October 19, 2020
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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:
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
ORDER APPROVING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
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.
About Matthew Dolman Attorney – What He Claims to Be
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.
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.