Fabio A. Sciarrino and Bernadette Irace of MOODK’s New Jersey office obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice against their client, a nursing home facility.  Plaintiff was working as a nurse at the client’s facility when she slipped on a wet floor causing injury.  As a result of the injury, Plaintiff received Workers’ Compensation Benefits. In New Jersey, it is well settled that the Workers’ Compensation Act bars employees from recovering in a civil suit against their employers for injuries sustained on the job. In this case, Plaintiff argued that since she was hired by and received her paychecks from a staffing agency and not the client’s facility, the agency was her employer, and she was not barred from recovering from the facility in a separate lawsuit.  The case centered on the issue of whether Plaintiff was a special employee of the facility and thus limited to the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation benefits.  The staffing agency provided administrative human resources services to the client’s facility such as hiring and issuing the Plaintiff weekly paychecks, while the client’s facility controlled every other aspect of Plaintiff’s employment.   Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s attempts to categorize the staffing agency as Plaintiff’s employer, MOODK attorneys successfully established that Plaintiff was a special employee of the client’s facility, and because Plaintiff received worker’s compensation for her injuries, her claims against the client’s facility were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Patricia Fecile-Moreland and Michael Joyce of MOODK’s Philadelphia office obtained early dismissal of a tortious interference claim in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. MOODK’s client was a Philadelphia Foundation dedicated to serving and protecting the local Jewish community in the Greater Philadelphia area. The Foundation became aware of a local university professor who had been posting what the Foundation saw as antisemitic content on the professor’s social media page. The Foundation wrote a letter to the university’s president where the professor taught in order to inform the university of what the professor was posting and raise concerns about what the Foundation believed was antisemitic content not in line with the university’s values. The Foundation however did not call for the professor to be fired and merely requested that the university take any action it saw appropriate. Months after the Foundation sent its letter, the professor was ultimately fired by the university after similar concerns were raised by other groups. The professor brought a lawsuit against the university for discrimination, some of the other groups for defamation, and against the Foundation for tortious interference with contract in federal court. MOODK’s attorneys moved to dismiss the professor’s claims as barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution arguing that their client had the right to free speech under the First Amendment to raise what it saw as an issue of public concern with the university. Following briefing by the parties on the issue, the Court agreed and dismissed the claims against MOODK’s client as being barred by the First Amendment while allowing other claims against the university and other defendants to proceed.

Attorneys Fabio Sciarrino and ­­­­­Mark Merlini, Jr. of MOODK’s Philadelphia office obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client, a flea market organizer, in a products liability claim. Plaintiff was injured when the tires on his used snowblower exploded during inflation. Plaintiff claimed that the snowblower, which was purchased from a flea market, was defective and subject to a recall.  In their complaint, they argued that secondhand retailers (i.e. thrift shops, flea markets, garage sales, etc.) not only have a duty to disclose “defective or unsafe operating conditions” but also to “realize” those unsafe conditions.  In the pleadings stage, the case was removed from the Court of Common Pleas to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where MOODK attorneys successfully argued that Plaintiff had fraudulently joined their client in the lawsuit and, furthermore, Plaintiff’s theory about the standard applicable to secondhand retailers, is untenable and a reach of current law.   In its opinion, the Court held that there was “simply no basis … in Pennsylvania law” to require secondhand retailers to inspect “seemingly legal, safe, and ordinary products to ensure they are not subject to recall or are otherwise dangerous.”

Dawn C. Doherty and Brett T. Norton of MOODK’s Delaware office obtained dismissal of all charges against a medical provider and their staff. Plaintiff initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging medical negligence on behalf of their deceased parent who passed away due to complications from COVID-19. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants, who were all medical providers within the state of Delaware, caused decedent’s death because a member of their nursing staff allegedly contracted the virus and did not wear a mask while treating decedent, thereby causing decedent to contract COVID-19, ultimately causing her death.

A District Court will have jurisdiction if the action involves two citizens of different states and the controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Here, Plaintiff asserted complete diversity as she was a resident of Georgia and all Defendants were citizens of Delaware. However, because survivorship claims require the Plaintiff to assume the citizenship of the decedent, the Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because decedent was also a citizen of Delaware.