.

Jahlee is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice in the areas of employment law, civil rights, and municipal liability. Jahlee has represented public and private employers in wrongful discharge, employment discrimination and defamation claims from administrative proceedings through trial. In addition, Jahlee has provided guidance and advice to employers concerning employment-related matters. 

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Jahlee was an Attorney Advisor for a municipal police department where he was accountable for their Office of Professional Responsibility. In that capacity, Jahlee guided the department on issues concerning labor relations, contract disputes, defensive litigation and internal affairs investigations and drafted policies and procedures. He also worked as a Prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. There, Jahlee prosecuted dozens of jury trials and hundreds of bench trials. In addition, he was assigned to the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which investigated and prosecuted cases that involved public corruption and police misconduct. 

Jahlee is very active within his community as demonstrated through his several prominent leadership roles in Philadelphia non-profit organizations and legal associations. An alumnus of Leadership Philadelphia, Jahlee previously served as Chair of the Citizen’s Police Oversight Commission, and he currently sits on two non-profit boards including the Philadelphia City Institute and the Board of Trustees for the Independence Charter School West and is a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Board of Governors. He is a Past President of the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia. Notably, Jahlee was recognized by The Philadelphia Tribune as one of Philadelphia's most influential African Americans.

Jahlee received his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law, where he was a member of the Alternative Dispute Resolution team. In addition, Jahlee was a part of Widener's Frederick Douglas Mock Trial team and won the Philadelphia regional competition.  Jahlee has a Master's Degree in Organizational Development and Leadership and graduated from Temple University with a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice.  Based upon his experience and skill, Jahlee was admitted to the United States Supreme Court Bar in 2024.  He is also admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  
 

    • Saint Joseph's University (M.S., summa cum laude, 2021)
    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2012)
    • Temple University (B.A., 2009)
    • New Jersey, 2012
    • Pennsylvania, 2012
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2022
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2024
    • Philadelphia Tribune's Most Influential African American (2022)
    • Barristers' Association of Philadelphia
    • Independence Charter School West, Board of Trustees, 2022-present
    • Philadelphia Bar Association, Board of Governors; member, Diversity in the Profession Committee

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

No Relation Back: District Court Bars Substitution of John Doe Defendants After Statute of Limitations in § 1983 Opiate Withdrawal Death Case

January 1, 2026

The estate of an incarcerated decedent filed a complaint against the correctional facility, the warden of the facility and “John Doe” correctional officers on January 31, 2024. The complaint stemmed from the incarcerated decedent’s February 1, 2022, death due to complications associated with opiate withdrawal. The plaintiff’s claims included a § 1983 claim of deliberate indifference, alleging that the incarcerated decedent died based on his underlying drug withdrawal. On June 4, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, where they identified for the first time, correctional officers and supervisors as named defendants. As a result, the newly named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff from substituting the John Doe defendants. The District Court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s amended complaint against the newly added correctional officers. In granting motion to dismiss, the District Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitation. In objecting to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff raised two arguments: (1) there was “good cause” to extend the relation-back period to encompass adding newly named defendants; and (2) that because the newly named defendants were supervisory defendants, they shared “identity of interest” with the original named defendants and could be added as defendants. The court quickly dispelled the plaintiff’s argument that good cause existed to allow the substitution of John Doe defendants more than a year after the passing of the statute of limitations. The court found that the plaintiff did not make any effort to identify the newly added parties prior to filing the initial lawsuit. Additionally, the plaintiff exhausted the statute of limitations before even attempting to substitute the John Doe defendants. The court also discredited plaintiff’s “relation back” argument, noting that in order for this doctrine to apply, there must be a showing that: (1) the claim set forth in the amended pleading arose out of the initial conduct/transaction alleged in the original complaint; (2) the parties received adequate notice of the institution of the proceedings; and (3) the parties sought to be added knew that they would be defendants in the lawsuit. The court relied heavily on the fact that plaintiff did not demonstrate that the parties had actual or constructive notice of the suit within 90 days of the filing of the original complaint. The court delineated that constructive notice can be established where parties share an attorney or had “identity of interest.” Identity of interest generally means that the parties are so closely related in their business operations or other activities that the institution of an action against one serves to provide notice of the litigation of another. The court held that non-management employees do not share a sufficient nexus of interest with their employer to establish identity of interest. Additionally, the court considered the fact that the original defendants and the newly added defendants did not share the same attorneys so F.R.Civ.P. 15(c) did not trigger constructive notice. Here, plaintiff failed to show that the parties were on notice of the institution of the original proceeding, or that the parties knew that they would be defendants in plaintiff’s litigation. Based on that, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Defense Digest

A Shift in Wrongful Incarceration and Malicious Prosecution Lawsuits: Multi-Million Dollar Settlements Turned into Case Dismissals

December 1, 2025

Key Points:  The pleading standard for wrongful incarceration and malicious prosecution cases may gradually be shifting to require more specific allegations in order to establish such claims.  The Constitution does not provide individuals with a right to have an “adequate” investigation conducted.  In recent years, there has been a drastic shift in the way that local prosecutor’s offices handle wrongful incarceration cases, specifically as it relates to overturned homicide convictions. For instance, since 2020, the City of Philadelphia has paid in excess of $20 million in fees for settlement of lawsuits stemming from wrongful incarcerations. Separately, juries have awarded plaintiffs more than $10 million in wrongful conviction cases.  These wrongful incarceration lawsuits have been fueled, in part, by efforts by prosecutors to hold police officers accountable for engaging in unethical practices while investigating crimes. In 2021, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office charged three long-retired homicide detectives with perjury and related charges in connection with their testimony in a criminal trial. The underlying criminal trial stemmed from the rape and murder of an elderly woman, which occurred in 1991. The defendant in that case was convicted, in part, based on a confession that he provided. The defendant was later granted a new trial, and the homicide detectives provided testimony concerning the methods used to obtain the confession. The defendant was acquitted.  Following the acquittal, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office arrested the homicide detectives based on their testimony at the re-trial. Two of the three detectives were later convicted of perjury and related offenses. The criminal defendant later filed a civil rights lawsuit, which settled for millions of dollars.  In another case, a former Philadelphia homicide detective, James Pitts, was arrested and convicted of felony charges for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the 2010 interrogation of a homicide suspect. In that case, Pitts investigated a gruesome robbery/homicide and developed O.O. as a suspect. Pitts interrogated O.O. and obtained a confession. The confession was later used to prosecute and convict O.O. for homicide and related charges. In 2021, O.O.’s conviction was overturned, in part, based on the District Attorney’s finding that O.O.’s confession was coerced. In 2022, Pitts was arrested for perjury and related charges following a grand jury indictment. Pitts was later convicted and sentenced to more than two years’ incarceration.  Following Pitts’ incarceration, several civil lawsuits were filed against him, alleging he coerced the plaintiffs into providing false confessions and maliciously prosecuted them for crimes they did not commit.  Prior to the case of Wallace v. City of Phila. et al., 2025 WL 2935248 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2021), the District Court routinely allowed those lawsuits to advance through discovery simply based on an allegation that law enforcement officials obtained coerced confessions and/or physically assaulted criminal defendants. However, in Wallace, District Court Judge Karen Marston ruled that barebones claims of malicious prosecution, in the absence of something more, do not establish a viable malicious prosecution or wrongful incarceration claim.  In Wallace, the plaintiff brought claims of malicious prosecution, deprivation of due process, violation of the plaintiff’s right against self-incrimination, civil conspiracy, failure to intervene, Section 1983 Monell violations, and state law malicious prosecution. In the complaint, Wallace alleged that, in 2012, he was wrongfully convicted of second-degree murder based on Pitts’ wrongful conduct, including obtaining a false confession. In that case, Wallace claimed that he was merely present in a home when his associate shot and killed an off-duty police officer. Wallace claimed that following the shooting, Pitts obtained a coerced confession from him while he was heavily sedated and that Pitts also forcibly requested that bullet fragments be retrieved from the plaintiff’s body, against his will. Wallace was subsequently convicted of homicide and related charges and served more than a decade in prison before his conviction was overturned.  In response to the complaint, Pitts filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds including: (1) the complaint failed to establish that he engaged in conduct that amounted to malicious prosecution; (2) the plaintiff failed to establish that Pitts fabricated evidence; (3) the plaintiff failed to establish that exculpatory evidence was deliberately withheld or suppressed; (4) the plaintiff did not establish that an adequate investigation was not conducted: (5) the plaintiff did not establish a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination; (6) the plaintiff failed to establish a civil conspiracy; and (7) the plaintiff failed to establish a claim of failure to intervene.  In granting the motion to dismiss in its entirety, Judge Marston zeroed in on the malicious prosecution claim and found that, in order to establish such a claim, a plaintiff must establish the following: (1) the government initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in the plaintiff’s favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the government acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent with a legal seizure. Wallace, 2025 WL 2935248, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2025).  In dismissing the claims, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not put forth any allegations to suggest that Pitts knowingly provided false information to prosecutors in order to secure a conviction. In drawing this distinction, Judge Marston doubled down on a well-established proposition that a mere allegation of coercion, without more, is a legal conclusion that ordinarily will not survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at *8 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2025). Last, Judge Marston clearly delineated that the Constitution does not provide individuals with a so-called right to have an adequate investigation conducted. Id.  Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, 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. © 2025 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.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

News

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.