.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Roseland, New Jersey, Office

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023

September 1, 2023

by Justin F. Johnson

In February 1993, Roseland became the home of Marshall Dennehey’s North Jersey office. Its lone member, Howard Mankoff, was the original local managing attorney, and he is still with us today. Our initial home was in nearby Livingston, before relocating to our present office for the past 20 years. The Roseland office is located in the heart of North Jersey, in close proximity to two of the state’s largest cities, Newark and Paterson, and is a mere “hop, skip and a jump” to New York City (at least when traffic is light). In 2022, the office underwent a major construction project that included the creation of a beautiful new conference center, installation of state-of-the-art technology and communications systems, as well as new office furniture and decor. 

Over the past three decades, our office has experienced exponential growth and currently boasts 36 attorneys (24 shareholder/senior counsel, 4 special counsel, and 8 associate attorneys). An additional 3 attorneys joined us after the Labor Day holiday, when they concluded their judicial clerkships. Roseland is one of Marshall Dennehey’s largest offices. Our attorneys specialize in all four of the firm’s essential practice department: Casualty (16 attorneys), Health Care (8 attorneys), Professional Liability (6 attorneys), and Workers’ Compensation (6 attorneys). Many of our attorneys have decades of legal experience and are recognized leaders in their areas of specialization. Our office also benefits from the support of 10 accomplished and dedicated paralegals. 

Roseland’s Casualty Department is headed by Christopher Block, and includes Matt Schorr (who also serves as Assistant Director of the Casualty Department firmwide), Len Leicht (who received the honor of being named among the 2024 Best Lawyers in America for personal injury litigation), Mike Speer, Tim Jaeger, Alicia Calaf (member of the firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee as well as the Executive Committee Advisory Counsel), Art Bromberg, Julie Dorfman, Josie Scanlan, Sara Mazzolla, Jonathan Williams, Gary Lesser, Paul Lanza (who was recognized as a 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Star), Brian Byrne, Hellen Tuckett, and Sean Govlick. Paul and Josie have also been identified as 2024 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. The Casualty Department handles a wide variety of cases. Its attorneys aggressively tackle their cases and routinely achieve successful results for their clients, both outside and in the courtroom. 

The Roseland Health Care Department is supervised by Bob Evers (named as a 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyer, included among the 2024 Best Lawyers in America, named 2024 Lawyer of the Year for medical malpractice law in our region). Other members of the Health Care Department include Justin Johnson and Julia Klubenspies (both of whom also were named as 2024 Best Lawyers in America for medical malpractice law in the Newark, New Jersey, region), Ryan Gannon and Heather LaBombardi (both of whom were named as 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars), Maura Brady, Dave Tomeo, and Eric Grogan. In the recent past, the Roseland Heath Care Department (in conjunction with our colleagues in the Mount Laurel office) was recognized as runner-up for the Best Litigation Group in New Jersey. 

The Professional Liability Department in Roseland is led by Will Waldron (who is the supervisor for the Northeast Professional Liability Group) and Sunny Sparano (who serves as Chair of the Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group for the firm), Howard Mankoff, Wendy Smith, Patricia McDonagh, and Pauline Tutelo. This group has an extremely diverse portfolio of case types and is comprised of some of the most talented and experienced attorneys in their industry. 

And last, but far from least, Roseland’s powerful and robust Workers’ Compensation Department is headed by Greg Bartley. Other group members include, Rachel Ramsay-Lowe (who currently serves a member of the Executive Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation section), Ida Fuda, William Murphy, Lela Eke, and David Levine. This group has grown in size during Greg’s tenure and successfully litigates a tremendous volume of cases. 

In Roseland, we draw upon a wealth of experience and a depth to service our clients that goes above and beyond their expectations. Many of our attorneys have successfully litigated cases through trials, arbitrations, mediations, and keen motion practice. In combination with our Marshall Dennehey colleagues in the Mount Laurel office, we have been named a finalist in The American Lawyer Regional Litigation Department of the Year award. Although we are very diverse in our backgrounds, educations, and experiences, we are a tight-knit group (attorneys, para-professionals, and staff) who trust and care for each other, and genuinely enjoy each other’s company. If you are ever in our area, we would love to have you stop by and see for yourselves. 

*Justin, a shareholder, is the managing attorney of our Roseland, New Jersey, office. He can be reached at 973.618.4185 or jfjohnson@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023, 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. © 2023 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

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.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

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.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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