Mark Giannotti of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of his client

Mark Giannotti of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of his client. Plaintiff was an inpatient resident at Defendants’ drug and alcohol facility when he was assaulted by two other residents in the men’s bathroom. Plaintiff suffered a fractured jaw and back-related injuries as a result. Plaintiff filed a premises liability action in Philadelphia County alleging that his injuries were sustained as a result of Defendants’ failure to provide a safe living environment. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that, inter alia, Plaintiff’s recovery was barred pursuant to the Assumption of the Risk Doctrine and that his own negligence exceeded that of Defendants’. The Court agreed granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s action with prejudice.

Sharon Conners of Marks O’Neill’s Maryland office was successful in obtaining summary judgment under Federal Rule 56 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

On February 2, 2018, Sharon Conners of Marks O’Neill’s Maryland office was successful in obtaining summary judgment under Federal Rule 56 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit against her former employer for both age and race discrimination following her termination. Plaintiff initially filed against her former employer for age discrimination under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, in addition to her claims of race discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. Sharon previously obtained a dismissal of all claims except for the federal age discrimination claim.

The Motion for Summary Judgment argued that Plaintiff was discharged for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, rather than the age discrimination she alleged. The District Court agreed, and entered summary judgment in Defendant’s favor.

Delaware Attorney Obtains Favorable Ruling from US District Court

Eileen Ford, Esquire obtained a favorable ruling from the US District Court, Delaware in a matter applying the Sutton Rule to grant a 12b6 motion to dismiss.

State Farm v. Lambert, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192323 (D. Del. 11/21/17) involves a claim filed by the landlord’s insurer, as subrogee of the landlord.. State Farm sought damages in excess of $100,000 from the tenant (Lambert), claiming that the tenant is responsible for the damages to the rental unit, except normal wear and tear, due to a negligently caused fire. On behalf of the defendant, MOODK argued that Delaware’s adoption of the Sutton Rule prevents the insurer of the landlord from suing the tenant. In essence, the Sutton Rule holds that “residential tenants are considered co-insured under the landlord’s fire – insurance policy unless the lease “clearly expresses intent to the contrary.” Lexington Ins. Co. v. Raboin, 712 A.2d 1011 (Del. Super. Ct. 1998). The public policy behind the rule is that, since a landlord likely factors the cost of the insurance premium into the rent, the law considers the tenant as a co-insured and an insurance company is precluded from suing its own insured. Plaintiff argued that the lease expressly carved out an exception for damages, above normal wear and tear, and that since the tenant had obtained renter’s insurance it proved she was aware of her liability for “fire” damage to the rental unit. While the District Court found agreed that the lease did contain a provision concerning “normal wear and tear it failed to contain clearly stated express language that the tenant agreed to assume liability for “negligently caused fire damage.”

Dismissal of New Jersey Class Action

Sean Kelly and Melissa Kanbayashi of Marks, O’Neill’s New Jersey office, were successful in obtaining a voluntary dismissal in a class action venued in New Jersey Federal District Court. Marks O’Neill represented a national retail furniture chain. Plaintiff filed a putative class action challenging our client’s pricing practices contending that they violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and associated advertising regulations. In support of a motion to dismiss, our team submitted various arguments attacking the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s individual claims and also seeking to strike the class claims. the. In response, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.

New Jersey Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgement

Melissa Brown and Amanda King of the New Jersey office of Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. were successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of our insured in a major architectural malpractice matter. Our insured engineer was sued by a contractor for professional malpractice associated with the design of sports fields for a local school. Plaintiff switched counsel during prosecution of the case and neither counsel served our insured with an Affidavit of Merit required by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. After the statute expired, our office immediately moved for dismissal of the action. Plaintiff’s counsel argued extraordinary circumstances and substantial compliance in opposition to our Motion. In response, we cited to controlling cases in New Jersey which require rigid implementation of the Affidavit of Merit timeframes. We noted that courts have regularly held that an attorney’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Merit Statute does not create extraordinary circumstances. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to our insured who was dismissed with prejudice.