Case Background
This legal dispute centered on a soured business relationship between International Firearms South, Inc. ("International Firearms") and Glatze Militum, LLC ("Glatze"). The two companies had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement to conduct business operations in Miami-Dade County. Under the terms of this agreement, both parties shared responsibilities for managing the venture’s day-to-day operations and maintaining financial records according to standard accounting practices. The partnership eventually collapsed into litigation when International Firearms accused the Defendants of financial misconduct.
Cause
The conflict arose from a series of unauthorized financial transactions. International Firearms alleged that between December 2017 and August 2018, Yevgeniya Carita—acting as an agent for Glatze transferred approximately $400,000 from the venture's bank account to her personal accounts. The Plaintiff claimed these transfers occurred without their consent and violated the specific protocols outlined in their joint agreement.
Injury
International Firearms stated that these unauthorized withdrawals caused severe financial instability. Beyond the immediate loss of capital, the company reported that it suffered from a loss of use of those funds and faced penalties because it could no longer deliver on existing contracts and orders.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought more than $15,000 in damages, though the specific amount tied to the allegedly converted funds was approximately $400,000. In addition to the return of the funds, International Firearms demanded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, along with the reimbursement of legal costs and expenses.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case proceeded through the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County under Case No. 2018-042138-CA-01. During the trial, the parties presented conflicting accounts of their business dealings and the authority granted under the Joint Venture Agreement.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): International Firearms South, Inc.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Carolyn N. Budnik | Matthew Z Karim
Defendant(s): Glatze Militum, LLC | Yevgeniya Carita
Counsel for Defendant(s): Brian D. Gottlieb
Expert for Defendant(s): Marc Binder
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Counsel for International Firearms argued that Glatze and Carita had a clear contractual and fiduciary duty to handle venture funds with transparency and in good faith. They contended that the Defendants intentionally bypassed internal controls to embezzle money for personal gain.
Claims
The Plaintiff brought four primary counts against the Defendants:
Breach of Contract: International Firearms alleged Glatze failed to follow the profit-sharing and capital withdrawal rules of the Joint Venture Agreement.
Unjust Enrichment: This alternative claim suggested that Glatze unfairly benefited from $400,000 that rightfully belonged to the Plaintiff.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The Plaintiff argued that Carita, as an agent of the venture, owed a duty of loyalty and honesty which she broke by diverting assets.
Conversion: This claim focused on the unauthorized exercise of control over the Plaintiff’s money, effectively depriving them of their property.
Defense
The Defendants denied the allegations of wrongdoing. While specific details of their defense were not fully elaborated in the initial complaint, the verdict form indicated they challenged whether International Firearms had fulfilled its own essential obligations under the contract. Glatze also raised affirmative defenses against the breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. Additionally, Glatze filed a counterclaim against International Firearms and its principal, Mark Kogan.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence, the jury reached a decision on September 5, 2025.
Verdict on Main Claims
The jury found in favor of the Defendants on all counts brought by International Firearms. Regarding the breach of contract claim, the jury determined that International Firearms did not perform all the essential things the contract required it to do, and it was not excused from those obligations. Consequently, the jury did not award any damages to the Plaintiff.
Verdict on Fiduciary Duty and Conversion
The jury also cleared Yevgeniya Carita of personal liability. They concluded that she did not fail to act with good faith or loyalty, nor did she wrongfully take control of money owned by the Plaintiff.
Verdict on Counterclaims
The jury similarly rejected the counterclaims filed by Glatze Militum. They found that Glatze was not entitled to take anything from Mark Kogan or International Firearms.
Final Judgment
Judge Charles Johnson signed the final judgment on September 24, 2025. The Court ordered that International Firearms take nothing from the action and dismissed the case against all parties. The Court also ruled that each party must pay its own legal costs.
