Mark Merlini, Esquire and Michael Joyce, Esquire of MOODK’s Philadelphia Office obtained dismissal of all claims against their client through motion in limine practice prior to trial. Plaintiff claimed that multiple radiologists failed to correctly interpret mammogram studies and timely diagnose breast cancer which led to a delay in treatment. In addition to suing the radiologists and their employer, Plaintiff asserted claims against an alleged parent company (MOODK’s client) of the radiologists’ employer, as well as the hospital facility where the studies were performed, under vicarious liability theories. Despite the Court initially denying a Motion for Summary Judgment, MOODK’s team continued pursuit of the issue and refined arguments through Motion in Limine practice which ultimately resulted in the complete dismissal of MOODK’s clients from the case. While the case was ultimately resolved prior to trial, MOODK’s clients were exonerated through effective use of pretrial motion practice.

Gary L. Koenigsberg, Esquire and Stephen D. Holmes, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey office secured dismissal of claims brought against a law firm under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,  N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (“CFA”).  MOODK demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the requisite elements of an actionable claim under the CFA. MOODK further persuaded the Court by arguing that the law firm and its attorneys are not subject to provisions of the CFA, as they fall within the CFA’s  “learned professionals” exemption.

Phil Degnan, Esquire and Kandace Brackins, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey Office recently obtained a dismissal of a personal injury complaint arising from a slip and fall, where plaintiff claimed she fell during an ongoing snow storm in a residential condominium association. The firm’s original motion for summary judgment was denied. MOODK filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that there was no evidence that our clients increased a risk of harm to Plaintiff by failing to pre-treat the roadway. In rendering his decision, the judge acknowledged that he had misinterpreted the application of the ongoing storm rule as to both the insured and co-defendant.  The Court reversed its prior ruling and dismissed the lawsuit altogether.