Saul I. Molina

Saul I. Molina is an associate in the Casualty Department where he concentrates his practice on defending a wide range of civil litigation matters. He represents individuals, businesses, and insurers in high-exposure matters involving motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, products liability, dram shop actions, intentional torts, and public entity and civil rights claims. Saul works closely with clients to shape litigation strategy from the outset of a case through resolution, whether by dispositive motion, negotiated settlement, or alternative dispute resolution. Through his motion practice, Saul has effectively secured complete dismissals for corporate clients, including major international hotel chains and non-profit sports organizations.

Saul’s practice is informed by his prior service in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and his work at a regional firm based in New York City handling asbestos and mass tort litigation. While working full time as a paralegal prior to and during law school, Saul worked with Assistant U.S. Attorneys in affirmative and defensive matters involving the False Claims Act, qui tam actions, Affirmative Civil Enforcement (ACE), healthcare compliance, and the defense of federal agencies and employees under various state and federal statutes.

Saul earned his J.D. from Rutgers Law School, where he served as Senior Staff Editor of the Journal of Law and Public Policy and Treasurer of the Latin American Law Student Alliance. He completed his undergraduate studies in Political Science and Philosophy at Pennsylvania State University, gaining early legal experience through internships with the Innocence Project and for a member of congress in Washington D.C.

Fluent in Spanish, Saul is active in both professional and community organizations, including devoting time to pro bono service to low-income residents and families in Philadelphia, PA. He is barred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

- Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2025)
- The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 2020)
- Pennsylvania, 2025
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2025
- U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
- New Jersey, 2026
- Spanish (Fluent)
- Hispanic Bar Association (HBA)
- Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania/ New Jersey
- Federal Bar Association (FBA)
- Defense Research Institute (DRI)
- Successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims, with prejudice, on behalf of a nonprofit youth baseball league in New Jersey. The court agreed the league was protected under the Charitable Immunity Act and that the volunteer coaches, including the minor plaintiff’s parent, were independently shielded under state law. This decisive ruling not only ended the case in our client’s favor but also prevented plaintiffs from expanding the litigation.
- Volunteer, Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent Program (VIP)

Results

View all

Dismissal of All Claims Secured in a Personal Injury Action in New Jersey

We secured dismissal of all claims, with prejudice, in a personal injury action on behalf of a nonprofit organization operating youth baseball leagues in New Jersey. The plaintiffs sought to hold our client liable under a negligence theory after their minor child was injured while participating in our client’s recreational baseball league. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the league was a nonprofit organization entitled to protection under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act, which shields nonprofits from ordinary negligence. In opposition, the plaintiffs attempted to avoid dismissal by challenging the league’s nonprofit status, claiming the minor’s age created an exception to the Act. Through targeted arguments and documents evidencing the league’s nonprofit status, the court agreed that the Charitable Immunity Act applied and that the plaintiffs failed to show gross negligence to overcome the Act’s protections. The court granted the league’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and further agreed with our arguments that the volunteer coaches were independently shielded under New Jersey’s Volunteer-Coach Immunity.