SWIFT AND ZEALOUS DEFENSE BY MOODK ATTORNEYS LEADS TO EARLY DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST CLIENTS IN MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CASE

MOODK Philadelphia attorneys, Kevin J. O’Brien and Casey G. McCurdy, obtained early dismissals for their clients involving a tragic accident on Broad Street which resulted in the amputation of both of Plaintiff’s legs. Plaintiff was unloading furniture on Broad Street outside of a condominium complex when he was struck full-speed by another vehicle. Plaintiff sued the condominium association and property management company asserting negligence and arguing that both defendants failed to provide a usable area to load/unload furniture that was not on Broad Street, and failed to implement safety measures on Broad Street to protect residents unloading/loading vehicles. Plaintiff sought millions of dollars in damages. Attorneys O’Brien and McCurdy filed preliminary objections arguing that neither the association nor the property management company owed a duty to Plaintiff, even if their employees directed Plaintiff to park on Broad Street (as was alleged in the Complaint). The attorneys argued that the accident occurred entirely on Broad Street, which is considered a State highway that is maintained by the Commonwealth. They further argued that under Pennsylvania law, an adjacent landowner to a public highway is not liable for physical harm caused to travelers upon the highway or persons lawfully using the highway. The attorneys argued that there was nothing on their clients’ property which contributed to and/or caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff. They further argued that prior knowledge of others parking in an active lane of traffic on Broad Street in the past was irrelevant, since the area is not controlled or maintained by their clients. The Court agreed with the attorneys’ reasoning and issued an Order dismissing all claims against their clients, with prejudice.

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED IN OPIOID LITIGATION

Sean Kelly of Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office represented a pharmacy in a wrongful death claim action filed against the manufacturers and prescribers of various opioids. We filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that there was no plausible cause of action pled under New Jersey Law against our pharmacy client.  After a persuasive oral argument, the court agreed, granted our motion and dismissed all claims against our client.

 

New Jersey Class Action Victory

Sean Kelly of Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office scored a victory in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of a medical billing company in a putative class action.  On behalf of the Class, Plaintiff claimed that our client’s written communications violated the FDCPA by inclusion of a code that was visible on the outside of its envelope.  We argued that discovery demonstrated that the Plaintiff lacked standing, having suffered no concrete or actionable harm under the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo.  We were also able to distinguish our client’s code from other markings that the Third Circuit found to violate the FDCPA.  The District Court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims. 

New Jersey Victories in Legal Malpractice Actions

Sean Kelly of Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office obtained a dismissal of all claims of legal malpractice against our clients arising from underlying complex commercial litigation. Our clients represented a corporation in various pieces of litigation stemming from a failed commercial property development. Plaintiffs alleged damages in excess of $50 million dollars. We successfully argued that Plaintiff was not able to allege the necessary causal relationship between our client’s representation and its alleged damages. The District Court agreed and dismissed the Complaint.

 

Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office was also successful in obtaining dismissal of legal malpractice claims arising from the handling of Plaintiff’s dental malpractice claims. We filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that our client formally undertook the representation, but instead merely consulted with the  Plaintiff. The trial court agreed that there existed no viable claim of legal malpractice and dismissed the claims.