Results

We achieved dismissal of a disciplinary complaint brought against our attorney client who was the victim of a sophisticated scam and sent IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts) funds belonging to another client out of the country.

The real estate agent represented a buyer in the purchase of a home in Adams County. Prior to closing, the buyer had the property’s septic system inspected, and the system passed the inspection. Several months after closing, the real estate agent’s client decided to sell the property. When the new prospective buyers had the septic system inspected, the system failed the inspection, and they would not agree to close until the client fixed the system. The client then learned after the fact that the original sellers had experienced many issues with the septic system, that the system had failed several prior inspections because the ground would not perc, and that the sellers failed to disclose this information when they sold the property to the client. The client filed a complaint against the real estate agent with the BPOA under the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act, alleging the agent engaged in misrepresentation and unprofessional conduct, and claimed that the agent allegedly had knowledge of the prior history with the septic system but failed to disclose it to her. We were able to demonstrate to the BPOA investigator that the real estate agent had no knowledge of the prior history with the septic system, that neither the sellers nor their agent ever disclosed information about the system, and that if she was aware, she would have advised the client not to close on the purchase until the septic system was repaired. The BPOA declined to prosecute and closed its investigation.  

The plaintiff alleged that his client and a neighboring property owner were responsible for water and septic intrusions onto the plaintiff’s property. The three Bucks County properties formed a large triangle between two roads in Perkasie, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff’s complaints against his neighbors went back over seven years. We argued the trespass onto the plaintiff’s property was permanent in nature and was barred under the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff’s experts failed to establish the intrusion emanated from our client’s property.

We obtained a defense verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a case where the plaintiff sought $24.1M for alleged property damages and lost revenue.     In 2014, our client defendant, a marine construction company, was retained by the U.S. Navy to conduct pile driving activities at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The plaintiff, a neighboring commercial property owner, alleged that our client's pile driving and related activities damaged its property and caused it to lose revenue. All other defendants settled before trial. The plaintiff claimed $20 million in damages against our client. A bifurcated trial began on January 17, 2023. The plaintiff’s demand dropped throughout the nine-day liability phase, which involved numerous scientific and engineering experts and other witnesses. On January 27, 2023, the jury returned its unanimous verdict, attributing 60% of the fault to plaintiff itself and 25% to the Navy, which resulted in a defense verdict for our client. As a result of the defense verdict on liability, there will be no damages phase.  

We successfully defended a late answer against a claimant’s Yellow Freight motion by convincing the judge that the claimant’s claim petition was not well-pled and did not meet the claimant’s burden of proof with respect to disability. The claim petition alleged that the claimant did not return to work for the employer and sought payment of ongoing disability. In defense of the motion, we submitted evidence showing that the claimant returned to work for the employer within days of the alleged work injury, arguing that the claimant was not disabled as alleged. Accordingly, the judge was convinced that, although the employer’s answer was late, the claim petition was not well-pled and the Yellow Freight motion was denied.

The plaintiff pet owners brought claims of emotional/bystander distress and recklessness against the delivery service after personally witnessing the incident that tragically killed their family dog. We filed a Motion to Strike (equivalent of 12b(6) in State of Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport), citing appellate authority that, because dogs are personal property and bystander distress arises out of human-to-human relationships, plaintiffs were barred from alleging and recovering any kind of emotional distress damages. Only the fair market value purchase cost of the pet should be permitted. The plaintiffs cited recent trial court decisions allowing such claims and going against the grain of older appellate cases. After oral argument the court sided with the defense, agreeing that for important policy concerns the plaintiff cannot prevail because the plaintiffs were asking the court to legislate and make law beyond its authoritative powers.

A panel of the the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed an order of the U.S.D.C. for the District of Delaware which granted a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in favor of law enforcement officials. The plaintiff filed suit under Section 1983, seeking damages for the alleged violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights following a traffic stop, for driving under the influence of alcohol, and the lawful seizure of blood alcohol evidence. The officials moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were barred by the claim accrual rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed.  Counsel argued on appeal that the plaintiff was convicted of “reckless driving” and was subject to the “alcohol-related” penalty provision of Delaware’s reckless driving statute. As such, the imposition of the plaintiff’s sentence requires his willful or wanton disregard for safety of others be related to alcohol use. The Third Circuit agreed. In affirming, the court explained, “[c]onsidering that alcohol involvement was the basis for the alcohol-related penalty provision and considering the evidence obtained through the challenged search was integral to establishing the involvement of alcohol, any error in the search would not be harmless.” Because the plaintiff failed to show his sentence has been set aside, the court agreed that the plaintiff cannot bring his claims at this time.  

We obtained dismissal of both bad faith and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims in a case filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case arose from a UIM claim presented after a motor vehicle accident. In an extensive footnote to the order, the court included a fairly comprehensive overview of the standards for pleading viable bad faith in UTPCPL claims in Pennsylvania. The court did not allow the plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint in order to cure the pleading defects.

We obtained dismissal of our client, a car dealership, from a suit pending in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff, who had addresses in Pennsylvania and Florida, had purchased a used Range Rover that allegedly experienced ongoing maintenance issues. The plaintiff sought repairs from various car dealerships, including our client. When the repairs were unsuccessful, she brought claims for breach of warranty, breach of contract and unfair trade practices against each of them. Our client had serviced the vehicle once, in Florida, and had no meaningful connections with Pennsylvania. The court was not impressed with the plaintiff’s arguments regarding our client’s website (accessible everywhere, including Pennsylvania) and unspecified, unrelated sales and shipments to Pennsylvania. The court dismissed our client, alone among the defendants, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

We obtained a dismissal of an ethics grievance against a matrimonial attorney in northern New Jersey. The ethics grievance alleged that money in the grievant’s trust account was improperly handled since the ledger cards were completed incorrectly. Upon interviewing our client, the ethics investigator determined that no ethical violation was present since the money at issue was fully accounted for in the Trust account, despite the allegations by the grievant.

We obtained a published decision in the New Jersey Appellate Division reversing the denial of a motion to dismiss because of a lack of duty. The plaintiff’s ex-husband drove through the gate at a large, high-rise apartment complex, waited for plaintiff to arrive, and then shot her in the face. Our client was the former management company which ceased its management obligations 17 days before the shooting, when a successor management company took over. The plaintiff argued that our client was negligent based on procedures for securing the lot it put in place when it managed the property. We sought summary judgment, arguing a lack of duty due to the expiration of a management contract. The Law Division judge denied that motion, asserting there were genuine issues of fact and that the jury had to decide whether a duty existed. We persuaded the Appellate Division to grant interlocutory appeal, and then we successfully argued for a reversal. First, the Appellate Division agreed with us that the trial judge erred by holding that the existence of a duty was a jury question and not a question for the court to decide as a matter of law. Second, the Appellate Division held that, since our client no longer had any rights or responsibilities over the security of the premises when the shooting happened, and because there was no indication that the successor management company or the owner of the property could not have changed the procedures which our client had put in place, the former management company owed no duty to the plaintiff and that summary judgment was therefore appropriate.

We obtained summary judgment in favor of a township client. The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the township, dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff’s negligence and negligent supervision claims. Counsel argued, and the court agreed, the township was immune from liability pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8541 et. seq.

The action was brought against an out-of-state insurer based on the plaintiff’s failure to arbitrate. The plaintiff filed suit against a New Jersey insurance company over treatment that occurred in Florida. However, the subject policy and the laws of New Jersey require mandatory arbitration prior to initiating litigation. On the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, the court found that the doctrine of lex loci contractus applied, which required the plaintiff to comply with New Jersey law and policy and to submit to arbitration prior to filing suit. The court entered a final order dismissing the case and compelling the plaintiff to complete binding arbitration.

We successfully obtained from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmance of a district court order granting a township’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss. The panel agreed with the appellees and concluded the District Court exercised proper discretion in dismissing the complaint since the plaintiffs failed to assert under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plausible claims of federal constitutional violations.

We obtained a defense verdict in a one-week trial in Hudson County, New Jersey, in a case where the plaintiff alleged the defendant insurance producer failed to alert the plaintiff of a policy renewal coming up and then failed to advise him that the policy had lapsed, and he had no insurance.  The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached a contract to provide the plaintiff with notices by email and that the defendant breached a duty of care in a claim for professional negligence. Due to the breadth of the insurance policy at issue, the claim against the defendant was for $500,000. At trial, the plaintiff relied upon his testimony that he did not receive the notices or any calls from the defendants regarding the lapse. We argued and established that any potential breach of contract or breach of a professional duty of care was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages because he failed to take any steps to either calendar or diary his insurance renewal deadlines and also failed historically to timely renew his insurance policies in the eight years preceding this loss. After an hour and fourteen minutes of deliberation, the jury agreed with the defense and found that the plaintiff could not establish a proximate cause between the alleged breach of a duty of care and plaintiff’s damages.   

We successfully appealed a summary judgment in favor of an insurance client that had been sued by another insurance carrier for more than $1.6 million in damages arising out of a fire loss to an insured auto repair facility. The opposing insurance company had paid $1.6 million in damages and intended to pursue a product liability claim against a vehicle manufacturer, alleging a defectively manufactured vehicle had caused the fire. Our client insured the vehicle that was allegedly defective. After the insurance companies conducted a preliminary expert evaluation, the vehicle was destroyed by a salvage yard in the normal course of business. A claim was made against our client for promissory estoppel where it was alleged the vehicle was destroyed despite a promise to preserve. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County’s rejection of the claims against our client and agreed with our contention that the promissory estoppel claim was a disguised claim for negligent spoliation, which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not recognize. 

In this case the plaintiff, after receiving legal invoices from our client, filed a legal malpractice complaint alleging fraudulent billing. At trial, the legal malpractice claims against our client were dismissed, leaving the fee claim we asserted in the counterclaim to be decided by the jury. The jury rendered a verdict in our favor within 15 minutes for the full amount of the invoices owed to the firm, $244,759.59. This victory is significant since, pursuant to the contract the plaintiff entered into with our client, the judgment on the counterclaim will total approximately $500,000.00 in interest and attorneys’ fees.

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment with respect to the applicability of a UIM “step down” clause. Following an accident with an underinsured tortfeasor, the underlying plaintiff sought UIM recovery under three policies, including one issued by our client with limits of $500,000. The defense successfully argued that our client’s UIM limits of $500,000 “stepped down” to the $100,000 UIM limits of the plaintiff’s own policy, pursuant to our client’s policy language. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, granted our motion. 

We successfully defended a surgical center in a case involving the death of a 56-year-old woman after shoulder surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the procedure should not have been performed at the surgical center due to the decedent’s comorbidities. The plaintiff also claimed that the decedent was post-operatively given an overdose of opioids, which caused respiratory distress and death. The defense argued that the decedent was appropriately monitored after having been given pain medication and that her death was not a result of an opioid overdose.

The plaintiff alleged she had been removed from her position as the Township Building Code Official and demoted to a lesser position in retaliation for testifying before a grand jury investigating allegations of misconduct involving a mixed-use apartment complex being developed within the Township.

We successfully prosecuted a suspension petition in a case of first impression in Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained a compensable mental injury while employed with the employer. Thereafter, he refused to attend an Impairment Evaluation after receiving 104 weeks of indemnity benefits due to his injury. The court initially issued an order compelling the claimant’s attendance. Nevertheless, the claimant maintained his refusal to attend the evaluation, citing the fact that he was COVID-19 positive and required to quarantine. We demanded that verification of the virus be made part of the evidence record. In response, the claimant’s attorney submitted into the evidence record a COVID-19 testing result, which was an at-home test. We reviewed the testing result and found that it was a fake—there was a pornographic image contained in the window of the positive testing result, and through internet research we determined that this fake test was being used all over the United States. The claimant’s attorney was unaware that the test was fake and maintained it as part of the evidence record. At oral argument, Tony referred the court to the manufactured evidence and not only argued for a suspension of benefits, but also alleged that the claimant violated the fraud provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. Claimant’s attorney immediately removed himself as counsel of record. The court determined, based on the evidence, that benefits were suspended and actually concluded as a matter of law that the claimant committed fraud – a decision of first impression in Pennsylvania.   

We obtained a favorable decision dismissing all claims and cross-claims brought against a car rental company in a motor vehicle accident case in Philadelphia. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged several injuries, and she sued several defendants, including our client, the rental car company that owned one of the vehicles involved in the accident. Citing to the rental agreement and the policies covering the rental vehicle, we argued that the car rental driver was not authorized to operate the vehicle as he rented the vehicle under false pretenses, permitted an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle, and operated the vehicle for hire in violation of the policies. The court ruled in our client’s favor, finding there was no coverage under the policies pursuant to the policy language and Pennsylvania case law. 

Claims were brought against the state police organization and eight individual defendants (current and retired members of the state police). The plaintiff, a female State Trooper, alleged she was retaliated against for raising complaints about how male members of the State Police were treating other female employees and that her supervisors failed to take appropriate actions once her initial complaints were raised. She alleged she was denied promotion and transferred against her wishes in retaliation for making these complaints. The ruling was especially satisfying as the court had ruled on a prior summary judgment motion that a fact issue existed, and we had to convince the new motion judge not to follow the “Law of the Case” Doctrine and to decide the case based on the record presented in this motion. 

We obtained the dismissal of a legal malpractice action against our client arising from its representation of the plaintiff in a lease agreement dispute. After the deadlines passed for completion of discovery and production of the plaintiff’s expert report, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of our client on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim for professional negligence failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff failed to produce an expert report to support its allegations of professional negligence. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it had been improperly sanctioned for a discovery violation. In support of its affirmance, the Superior Court found that summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff had been given ample time in which to satisfy its evidentiary burden of producing an expert report, but failed to act with due diligence and could not substantiate each element of its claim without an expert report. 

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

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, an amateur baseball league located in Monmouth County, New Jersey. In this matter, the plaintiff, an umpire assigner, filed a lawsuit alleging improper breach of contract, tortious interference and conspiracy to cut this assigner out of his company. The plaintiff also maintained a cause of action for emotional distress and punitive damages. On summary judgment, the defense argued that due to discovery deficiencies, as well inadequacies with the substantive claims alleged, the plaintiff could not state any material facts to surpass summary judgment. The court agreed, holding that the plaintiff failed to properly oppose the summary judgment motion and had not stated any facts in discovery that would support the claims of breach of contract or tortious interference, among others. The damages exposure of this case, prior to the dismissal, was approximately $10 million, especially considering the punitive damage potential in this matter.

We were granted summary judgment in a case involving a dispute between a religious denomination (our client), and one of its local churches. The client invoked its judicial process, allowing it to assume control of a local church due to declining membership. The pastor of the local church refused to vacate the parsonage. The local church asserted the denomination lacked the authority to assume control over it and argued that it was never actually part of the larger denomination. The issues involved First Amendment case law, which address whether and to what extent the courts can decide ecclesiastical disputes, and whether the religious denomination was a hierarchical church or a congregational church. The court accepted our argument that the local church was part of the denomination, that the denomination was hierarchical and that the First Amendment allowed the court to decide the dispute. The court granted our request to allow the denomination to assume control of the local church. 

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in favor of a project manager in a serious bicycle accident lawsuit. The plaintiff was thrown off his bike after striking a significant pothole in front of a building where our client performed work several years earlier. We successfully argued that the plaintiff’s alleged attempts to connect our client with the existence of the pothole were far too attenuated to be of any assistance to a jury. Following oral argument the judge agreed and granted summary judgment.

The claimant was hit by a forklift while operating a forklift, and alleged the accident caused a back injury. Through employer witness testimony and medical testimony, we showed that the claimant did not sustain a back injury, and that her medical issues were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident. The judge found that the evidentiary evidence presented by the employer established that, even though the claimant was involved in a forklift incident, the claimant did not sustain a work injury, and her ongoing medical issues are unrelated to the forklift accident. 

The decedent died of a heart attack after a three-day, over-the-road run for the trucking company. The decedent’s dependents argued that the heart attack was caused by the rigors of the job. Although the decedent died as he was about to execute paperwork denoting his employment status as an independent contractor—he never signed the document. The case, therefore, proceeded to litigation in the Workers’ Compensation forum. Expert evidence was presented on the issue of whether the decedent’s job duties had any contribution to the death. The court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that the work duties had no relationship whatsoever to the demise of the decedent. The fatal claim was dismissed in its entirety.