.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Marshall Dennehey Celebrates Recent Appellate Victories*

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022

December 1, 2022

*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.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.