Benjamin Tursi and Craig Renitsky presented a three-hour seminar titled Liquor Liability and Dram Shop Liability: An Overview of Law in NJ, NY, PA, DE & MD. During the seminar, presenters discussed the applicable statutes and controlling case law in each state, as well as the various methodology for litigating a liquor liability case. The presentation covered topics including investigation and discovery, admissibility of critical evidence, good and bad practices for liquor service, expert witness strategies, and MOODK’s experience litigating these matters. Special thanks to Philadelphia Insurance for inviting MOODK to present.

Dawn Doherty of MOODK’s Delaware office successfully obtained an Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and his Motion for Sanctions against the firm in federal District Court.  The pro se Plaintiff, who is a licensed attorney in New York State, was arrested for Third Degree Assault and Offensive Touching.  He claimed he was falsely arrested and, when in a holding cell at the Defendants’ police station, claimed his civil rights were violated due to the use of excessive force.  Plaintiff further alleged the arresting officers intentionally inflicted emotional distress and, as a result of Plaintiff’s false arrest, caused his marriage to fail.  After two successful Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his original Complaint and his First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies that both the Defendants and the court pointed out and, therefore, the court granted Defendants’ third Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff then attempted to appeal the District Court’s ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  However, the Third Circuit ultimately denied Plaintiff’s appeal and dismissed the case with prejudice. 

Sean Kelly presented a seminar titled EPL Update in the Covid ERA. The seminar discussed recent developments in employment litigation as well as the the impact of Covid on current and future litigation trends.

Eileen Ford of MOODK’s Delaware office obtained dismissal on summary judgment for two boiler manufacturer clients in two separate (consolidated) asbestos cases.  The Plaintiffs (two brothers)  alleged asbestos exposure to exterior insulation on boilers when they owned and operated a conglomerate of laundry businesses in Florida from the late-1960s into the mid-1980s.  Motions for summary judgment were filed on behalf of both clients on the basis that Plaintiff’s failed to provide sufficient evidence that the exterior insulation was a product manufactured by the clients as required pursuant to Florida’s Asbestos and Silica Act and/or the application of the bare-metal defense which the clients argued was the substantive law in Florida.  Alternatively, it was argued that because Plaintiffs could not place a particular boiler at any of their conglomerate locations (i.e. name recognition only), that they could not meet the “substantial factor exposure” requirement under Florida law.  Ultimately, the Court granted summary judgment on the grounds that it was Plaintiffs’ conglomerate that actually purchased the alleged asbestos-containing asbestos, and since they did not know the manufacturer of that insulation, could not quantify how often they present when insulation was removed or installed, summary judgment was granted.  The Court determined it did not need to reach the issue of predicting how Florida Supreme Court would rule on the bare-metal defense argument.