Dana Entertainment, Inc. v. Tucan & Baru Brickell, LLC

── Dana Entertainment, Inc. v. Tucan & Baru Brickell, LLC ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 20, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-1904 Lower Tribunal No. 25-13194-CA-01 ________________ Dana Entertainment, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. Tucan & Baru Brickell, LLC, Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl E. Trawick and Mavel Ruiz, Judges. Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, and Marcelo Diaz-Cortes for appellants Dana Entertainment, Inc., and Tu Candela Bar LLC; Quintero Broche & Fonseca-Nader, P.A., and Juan P. Broche, for appellant Marlon Brian Mejia. Hirzel Dreyfuss & Dempsey PLLC, and Leon F. Hirzel, for appellee. Before, SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J.  Dana Entertainment, Inc., Tu Candela Bar, LLC, and Marlon Brian Mejia (“Dana”) appeal the trial court’s non final orders appointing a receiver over Tucan & Baru Brickell, LLC (“Tucan”) and denying its motion to set aside the receivership. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(B); 9.130(a)(3)(D). We reverse and remand. I. Tucan runs a nightclub with an average reported gross sales revenue of approximately $12 million per calendar year since 2021. In July 2025, Tucan filed a complaint against Marlon Mejia 1 in his individual capacity. It alleged breach of statutory duties of loyalty and care, common law breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion and unfair competition. Tucan seeks compensatory and consequential damages, imposition of a constructive trust in favor of Tucan, disgorgement by Mejia of money, assets or interest acquired through his misconduct and an award of interest and costs. Tucan did not seek or demand injunctive relief or the appointment of a receiver within its complaint. 1 Marlon Mejia is co-manager of Tucan & Baru Brickell LLC with Hector Antunez. Pursuant to the “Operating Agreement of Tucan & Baru Brickell, LLC,” Mejia—as owner of Tu Candela Bar LLC—owns a 27% interest in the Tucan & Baru Brickell LLC. 2  At 11:49 p.m. on August 29, 2025—the Friday prior to Labor Day— Tucan filed an emergency motion for the appointment of a receiver. The motion was neither verified nor accompanied by an affidavit making factual averments. On August 30, 2025, Tucan submitted unverified exhibits in support of its motion. On September 3, 2025, little more than thirty-six hours following the holiday, the trial court judge entered the order appointing a receiver without having a hearing or receiving a response. The order was entered at 1:30 p.m. Sixteen minutes later, the trial court judge recused himself from the case. The receivership order found that “good and sufficient cause exists for the appointment of a receiver” and without further explanation, appointed a certified public accountant as receiver for Tucan and its assets. It also delineated such things as the powers of the receiver, froze Tucan’s assets, suspended all powers and authority of Tucan’s officers, shareholders, and managers and enjoined all persons other than the receiver from transferring, encumbering or disposing of any Tucan assets. The order, however, made no findings of fact and did not identify any irreparable harm facing Tucan or explain the need for a receiver. The order set the receiver’s bond at $5,000, despite Tucan generating annual revenue of approximately $12 million. 3  In response to the receivership order, Mejia immediately filed his verifi