Results

Obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. ​The plaintiff alleged to be permanently disabled and in a wheelchair, requiring home health care for the rest of her life, as a result of an Emergency Room physician’s failure to timely diagnose and treat a viral infection involving the 7th and 8th cranial nerves (Ramsay Hunt Syndrome). We represented the ER physician, his employer (who staffed the ER) and the hospital. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a $4 million life care plan to the jury for consideration, and the final settlement demand was $2 million. The jury agreed with the defense’s position that the doctor did not deviate from the standard of care. Because of this, no liability could be found against our client, nor any of the other defendants.

Obtained a dismissal on a directed verdict in a FINRA arbitration in New York. The defense represented a broker-dealer in a dispute with its former customer regarding the unauthorized use of her account information. The claimant was a customer of one of the broker-dealer’s New York branches, where her ex-husband also worked as a broker.

Obtained a directed verdict on behalf of a broker-dealer and a broker in a FINRA arbitration in New York. The claimant, a sophisticated and wealthy owner of a broker-dealer, alleged that he was being charged an unreasonable mark-up on municipal bond sales. The claimant further alleged that he was the victim of elder abuse. 

Obtained a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case in Florida. Our clients, two board-certified construction lawyers, had unsuccessfully defended the plaintiff, a real estate developer for a project in West Palm Beach, Florida, in a lawsuit brought by the general contractor that ended with an adverse jury verdict of over $1 million. In the underlying lawsuit, the two lawyers pursued a litigation strategy that, upon reflection, had little chance of success. The lawyers never communicated to their client the prospect of an adverse result, at least not in writing. During the underlying trial, the judge made critical comments concerning the attorneys' preparation and made several adverse rulings, including dismissing a third-party complaint against one party, stating that the lawyer had sued the wrong party, and another ruling excluding their primary expert because the expert's opinions were not properly disclosed during discovery. Our defense focused on the theme that the legal advice and strategy the attorneys provided to their client was based on inaccurate information supplied by the client; that the client deliberately withheld critical information; that their developer was the one in control of the underlying litigation strategy; and that his own actions and trial testimony undermined his case, not the actions of his attorneys. The trial lasted 14 days; the plaintiff's case took ten and one-half days to present three live witnesses; and there were over 500 exhibits admitted into evidence. The defense case was presented in two and one-half days with testimony from four live witnesses, including the plaintiff's attorney from the underlying trial. The jury deliberated for less than one and one-half hours before returning a defense verdict on all counts.

Secured a discontinuance for a multi-national auto financing company in a Chancery Division action in New Jersey arising out of claims by a potential franchisee against a dealership, the vehicle manufacturer, the financing company and a potential third-party buyer. The plaintiff's claims sought over $30 million in damages stemming from alleged violations of the New Jersey Franchise Act, breach of contract claims, tortuous interference allegations and a companion declaratory judgment action. The case involved the exchange of over half a million documents and extensive ESI discovery concerning sensitive consumer credit evaluations, personal net worth summaries, proprietary franchise statements, environmental impact studies, internal board meeting minutes, cell phone records, emails and due diligence materials, all subject to an order of confidentiality. The discontinuance was instrumental in clearing the path for the client to secure a key financing agreement with a new franchisor in a multi-million dollar dealer purchase. The settlement with the potential franchisee did not involve any contribution by the client.

Successfully represented a law firm in having a legal malpractice case dismissed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  The case involved an attorney of the law firm who had failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  After the case was dismissed, suit was brought against our client along with the individual attorney.  The plaintiff, well coached in the legal standard, testified that she clearly fell on hills and ridges and that if a response had been filed to the motion for summary judgment in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, it would have been denied.  During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that photographs the plaintiff allegedly took the day of the incident did not match up with the weather conditions on record.  (The plaintiff had emailed the original photographs, which she claimed she took that day, to our client at the time they were representing her.) An investigation of the weather reports and metadata related to the photographs revealed that the photographs were actually taken much later in the week, after a significant snowfall had occurred. Presented with this evidence, counsel for the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Attorneys obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on behalf of an accounting firm. Plaintiffs filed a Certificate of Merit indicating that "expert testimony is unnecessary" for prosecution of its claims. The attorneys' argued that plaintiffs could not present expert testimony on the standard of care or causation and, since the averments of the complaint taken as a whole implicated matters requiring expert testimony, plaintiffs' entire case must fail. The judge agreed and dismissed the entirety of plaintiffs' claims.

Attorneys obtained dismissal of a professional liability claim against defendant, a private, non-profit which provides a variety of health care services. Part of the services provided include mental health screening, which is furnished by certified screeners employed by the defendant. Several days after defendant conducted an initial assessment of an inmate at the county jail, the inmate committed suicide. His relatives, as Plaintiff, filed a complaint against defendant, as well as others, alleging negligence in failing to make proper recommendations and/or assessments with regard to plaintiff's mental status. Defense attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to produce an Affidavit of Merit within the time permitted required and, therefore, failed to establish any breach of the applicable standard of care.

Attorneys successfully defended an accountant and his firm in a malpractice case. Plaintiff filed a malpractice counterclaim to a collection action commenced by the accounting firm, and 25 days later plaintiff filed a separate action for malpractice against the accounting firm and the individual accountant. Defense attorneys filed praecipes for non-pros for failure to timely file a Certificate of Merit as to both actions. Attorneys convinced the Court that both the negligence and the breach of contract claims alleged deviation from a professional standard and therefore both counts should be dismissed.

We successfully argued that a plaintiff’s claims against a local police department were precluded by law. First, we pointed out that our client was not an entity that could be sued. Second, we emphasized that the statute of limitations applied to bar the plaintiff’s claims. Finally, we contended our client was immune from liability pursuant to R.C. § 2744.01, even if it could be sued. The plaintiff attempted to argue his case for excessive use of force, malicious prosecution and emotional distress for being arrested after he was fired from his place of employment. The judge ultimately granted our motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.