Roger R. Munn, Esq. and Bradley S. Clark, Esq. of MOODK’s Maryland Office successfully defeated a Plaintiff motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death case stemming from a shooting at a concert over Labor Day Weekend, 2024. Mr. Clark argued the motion, pointing out to the court that several key facts material to the Plaintiffs’ argument were hotly contested and noting that summary judgment is not appropriate in cases where material facts are in dispute. Plaintiffs argued that the decedent was and business invitee and that MOODK’s client therefore owed him a duty to prevent the shooting. Mr. Clark meticulously dissected the characteristics of invitees, licensees, and trespassers, then applied the facts of the case to those criteria to show the court that the decedent was a trespasser. After hearing nearly two hours of argument, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds that MOODK’s attorneys had shown a clear dispute of material fact that precluded summary judgment.

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.