J. Mark Pecci, II of Marks O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in having Preliminary Objections sustained in Philadelphia County. Defendant, a New Jersey bar, was sued by a Plaintiff estate for a death which occurred in Philadelphia. Preliminary Objections were filed by the bar seeking dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Preliminary Objections argued that the bar did not maintain significant contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for jurisdiction to be appropriate. The Philadelphia Trial Court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the claims against the bar. 

Patricia Fecile-Moreland of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of their client in a wrongful termination case brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (PWL). The case centered around the plaintiff’s contention that her former employer fired her on the basis of her meeting with government investigators regarding her employer’s internal operations, and on the basis of certain complaints of unlawful activity she allegedly lodged during her employment. The Motion for Summary Judgment argued that plaintiff failed to establish that she had actually lodged any protected complaints under the PWL, and that she had further failed to show that her termination was actually caused by any protected activity under the PWL in which she allegedly engaged. Ultimately, the Court agreed that plaintiff had failed to establish the requisite causation between her alleged protected activity and her termination, and summary judgment was awarded in favor of our client as a result.

Patricia Fecile-Moreland of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of their client in an age discrimination case brought pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Motion for Summary Judgment argued that our client, an assisted living and long-term care facility, had produced sufficient evidence that the plaintiff was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, and that the plaintiff could not establish that this reason was pretext for unlawful discrimination. The Court agreed that the plaintiff was unable to establish that our client’s reason for terminating her employment was pretextual, and granted summary judgment in favor of our client as a result.

Daniel Bentz of our Pittsburgh Office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of a client, a well-known multinational corporation. The case involved complex products liability issues, whereby the plaintiff claimed he was severely burned over a large portion of his body as a result of his use of several products that were alleged to be defective. In support of our motion for summary judgment, we were able to establish that the product at issue was not defective, and in the alternative, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that our client’s product was the cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The plaintiff did not appeal the decision and the client was permanently dismissed.