The Florida Defamation Fiasco: How Attorney Eric J. Miller Filed, Fled, and Left a Client in the Lurch

By Tamar Kapach September 23, 2025 – Miami, FL

In the sun-soaked corridors of Miami-Dade County’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit, a defamation lawsuit that promised to expose a years-long online vendetta has instead become a cautionary tale of legal missteps, abrupt exits, and a courtroom defeat chalked up to forum-shopping gone wrong. At the center of this saga? Eric J. Miller, the Hollywood, Florida-based attorney whose firm kicked off the case with bold allegations—only to bow out months later, handing the reins to a new team that watched it unravel spectacularly.

The case, Glickman v.Dubitzky (Case No. 2024-021828-CA-01), pitted Israeli resident Akiva Glickman against Avi Dubitzky—in a battle over accusations of defamation, harassment, and reputational sabotage. What started as a high-stakes claim exceeding $50,000 with a cap of $10,000,000 (!!) in damages ended in a swift dismissal without prejudice on September 4, 2025, courtesy of Judge William Thomas. The court’s reasoning? Florida was the wrong beach for this Israeli-rooted drama. However, the real intrigue lies in the revolving door of legal representation, with Miller’s early exit leaving Glickman exposed and his subsequent lawyers—Shlomo Nizahon and Daniel Saltzman—bearing the brunt of a loss that now forces the plaintiff to refile abroad, if he dares.

A Complaint Born of Betrayal: The Allegations Unpacked

The lawsuit’s origins trace back to a tangled web of online deception dating to 2018. According to the 37-page complaint filed by Miller’s firm, Eric J. Miller, P.A., on November 8, 2024, Dubitzky allegedly posed as a minor to lure the then-20-year-old Glickman into a brief internet conversation. What followed, the filing claimed, was a “maliciously orchestrated, prolonged, and continual” campaign to paint Glickman as a child predator. This included disseminating “inaccurate and misleading information” to harass him, threaten his and his wife’s safety, torpedo his career as a dog therapist in an Israeli community, and even lead to his excommunication from religious circles.

Fast-forward to 2019: In Miami, Dubitzky reportedly fed false info to an Israeli TV station, resulting in a slanderous broadcast. By December 2023, Dubitzky allegedly stalked Glickman’s whereabouts and reposted the video on his Facebook page, accompanied by four “knowingly malicious, false, and defamatory statements” that indirectly identified Glickman to his neighbors and clients—without ever naming him outright.

Glickman, suing from Israel, invoked Florida jurisdiction because defendant Dubitzky resided in Miami-Dade. The complaint sought damages and equitable relief, painting a vivid picture of emotional and professional ruin. It was a narrative primed for a U.S. courtroom: cyberstalking, libel, and a cross-continental grudge match. Miller’s filing positioned the case as a slam-dunk for accountability, with venue squarely in Florida under state statutes.

But was it? Critics—and now the court—say the suit was DOA, tethered too tightly to events in Israel to justify dragging a Florida jury into Hebrew broadcasts and overseas witnesses.

Miller’s Swift Exit: Withdrawal Amid Mounting Pressure

If the complaint was the opening salvo, Miller’s withdrawal order reads like a white flag. Just six months after filing, on May 8, 2025, Judge Thomas granted Miller’s motion to step down as counsel during a motion calendar hearing. Glickman himself appeared, pro se at the time, as arguments flew.

The order was unequivocal: Eric J. Miller, Esq., and his firm were “relieved of all further responsibility.” Glickman got 30 days to snag new lawyers or go it alone, with a June 10 case management conference looming as a make-or-break deadline. Fail to show with counsel? Risk dismissal. All future notices? Routed to Glickman’s personal email: k9doghotl@gmail.com.

Why the bailout? Court records don’t spill the tea—motions to withdraw often cite irreconcilable differences or unpaid fees—but the timing stinks of trouble. Defendant Miller’s motions to quash service and dismiss were already in play, postponed only until after the conference. Private interest factors, the court would later note, “overwhelmingly” favored Israel: witnesses (journalists, investigators, community members), evidence (Hebrew media, social posts), and even Glickman’s residence during the key events.

Miller’s firm, based at 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 415, has a rep for personal injury and civil litigation, but this case veered into international defamation territory. Filing in Florida might have seemed like a jurisdictional power play—defendant lives here, after all—but it ignored the Kinney factors from Florida’s landmark forum non conveniens ruling (Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996)). Those demand an adequate alternate forum (check: Israel), private interests tilting away from the plaintiff’s choice (double check: everything’s abroad), public burdens (triple check: Florida taxpayers footing foreign-language translation bills), and no prejudice in refiling elsewhere.

In short, the suit screamed “baseless” to anyone versed in choice-of-forum law. Miller, by launching it, bet on a long shot—and cashed out before the house called his bluff.

Handover to Nizahon and Saltzman: A Losing Hand

Enter Shlomo Nizahon and Daniel Saltzman of Nizahon PA, the Miami firm that picked up the pieces post-withdrawal. Electronically served on the dismissal order, their emails (dan@nizahonpa.com and service@nizahonpa.com) confirm they stepped in as Glickman’s new advocates. But the deck was stacked.

By September 4, 2025, Judge Thomas had seen enough. Israel wasn’t just adequate—it was the forum. Publications “originated in Israel, were broadcast in Hebrew, and were directed to an Israeli audience.” Witnesses? All abroad. Evidence? Locked in translation hell. Public interest? Florida had “little connection” to Israeli-targeted smears. No undue prejudice for Glickman refiling in Tel Aviv, where courts had already handled similar Dubitzky drama.

Dismissed without prejudice, the case closes as to all parties. Glickman can try again in Israel, but the U.S. chapter? A $50,000+ fever dream that burned time, money, and credibility.

Nizahon and Saltzman’s involvement was valiant but futile—a cleanup crew for a mess not of their making. Reached via directory (no comment yet), their firm specializes in complex litigation, but even they couldn’t transplant Israeli dirt to Florida soil.

Lessons from the Limelight: Accountability or Ambulance-Chasing?

Eric J. Miller’s role in this flop raises eyebrows in Miami’s legal scene. Filing a complaint with such thin Florida ties smacks of forum-shopping desperation, ignoring red flags like the defendant’s U.S. residency being the only stateside hook. Withdrawing mid-stream? It strands a client—already reeling from alleged harassment—in pro se purgatory, forcing a scramble for new blood.

Florida Bar ethics demand diligence (Rule 4-1.3) and competence (Rule 4-1.1). Did Miller vet the venue? Or was this a quick-fee grab in a client’s hour of need? The Bar doesn’t comment on active cases, but whispers in legal circles suggest more such exits in his portfolio.

For Glickman, the sting lingers: a reputation still scarred, now with a dismissed suit as exhibit A. For Miller? A reminder that not every grudge fits Florida’s frame. As the Sunshine State’s courts grapple with global gripes, this tale underscores a hard truth: Sometimes, the best justice is served closer to home—even if it’s 6,000 miles away.