Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

*Results do not guarantee a similar result.

Kimberly Berman, Patrick DeLong and Holly Hamilton (Fort Lauderdale, FL) obtained an affirmance by the Third District Court of Appeal of a non-final order dissolving a temporary injunction initially entered against a multi-condominium association following the erroneous entry of a temporary injunction. Three unit owners contended the Association improperly passed a special assessment to be used toward reconstruction of one of the buildings following a fire. The unit owners obtained a preliminary injunction invalidating the special assessment, halting construction, and mandating that the Association convene a membership meeting and community-wide vote. The Association swiftly moved to dissolve the injunction, which the trial court granted, recognizing it committed a clear legal error and a misapprehension of the facts when it entered the injunction. In affirming the order below, Judge Miller commended the trial judge for acknowledging its error and found there was a sufficient basis in law and fact for the dissolution and that allowing the injunction to stand would have been incompatible with equity principles. The court also granted the Association entitlement to a conditional award of appellate attorneys’ fees should it prevail below. Lecorps v. Star Lakes Association, Inc., 346 So.3d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2022).

Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm a workers’ compensation judge’s decision to deny the claimant’s petition to review a Utilization Review (UR) determination, and to reject the claimant’s argument that the judge was barred by the rules of collateral estoppel and issue preclusion from ruling on UR petitions. Troutman v. Norristown Ford, 2022 WL 4492203 (Pa. Cmwlth. Sept. 28, 2022). 

Audrey also persuaded the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny the claimant’s petition for allowance of appeal in a workers’ compensation matter where the claimant challenged the constitutionality of Act 111 and its Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) provisions. Kimberly Hender-Moody v. WCAB (American Heritage Federal Credit Union), 2022 WL 3592421 (Pa. Aug. 23, 2022). 

John Hare and Shane Haselbarth (Philadelphia, PA) convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to unanimously reverse a Philadelphia trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of a claim against online marketing platform Groupon. The plaintiff claimed Groupon was responsible for an alleged sexual assault during a massage the plaintiff’s son purchased on the Groupon platform and gifted to the plaintiff. The Superior Court ruled the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between her son and Groupon and she was, therefore, bound by the arbitration clause in the agreement.

 

_{Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}