Attorney Brett Norton of MOODK’s Delaware office secured a dismissal of a defamation and negligent training lawsuit against MOODK’s client in Wilmington, DE.  Plaintiff alleged that MOODK’s client defamed him when one of its employees informed him that the bathrooms were currently closed because of unsafe conditions and that defendant negligently trained its staff by refusing plaintiff the use of the bathroom. MOODK moved for dismissal of the claims, which the trial court granted holding that the employee’s statements were not defamatory because they were opinions and not fact.  Furthermore, the trial could held that the negligent training claim failed because plaintiff failed to plead a cognizable duty because the duty to train must be established by an underlying tort, which did not exist based upon the pleaded facts.  Lastly, the trial court held that plaintiff’s claim for damages was insufficiently pleaded in so much as plaintiff did not allege any physical injury arising out of the alleged tortious actions.

Attorneys Dawn Doherty and Brett Norton of MOODK’s Delaware Office secured a dismissal of an Eight Amendment suit by a represented prisoner-patient alleging cruel and unusual punishment arising out of the alleged denial of a surgical procedure. Plaintiff contended that MOODK’s client intentionally denied him a tonsillectomy notwithstanding that there were no clinical signs of tonsillitis. MOODK’s Attorneys moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The federal court held that medical practitioners were not indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs because they performed numerous examinations, tests, studies, and other treatment to the plaintiff, and developed tailored plans of care.  The court further held that MOODK’s client should also be dismissed because plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to show that a custom or policy existed under Monell that delayed the medical care of plaintiff to save costs. 

Sarah C. Boehme, Esq. and Joseph E. Palmquist, Esq. obtained dismissal of all claims brought against a condominium cooperative residential community for an alleged breach of agreement of sale for a condominium unit. The plaintiff filed suit alleging, amongst nine different counts, that our client breached the agreement of sale by terminating the agreement following a background check completed as a prerequisite for membership. The duo filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff’s Complaint arguing that the Plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The Court granted the Preliminary Objections and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Christian M. Scheuerman, Esquire and Lucas B. Klirsfeld, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey Office successfully obtained a decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division affirming summary judgment in favor of a client in a multi-party motorcycle accident case. Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged that MOODK’s client, a construction company, was negligent in performing its work as a part of a road-widening project on the Garden State Parkway. The trial court held that Plaintiffs’ expert had inadmissibly rendered a net opinion unsupported by factual evidence and Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed via summary judgment. After instrumental briefing and oral argument by Lucas B. Klirsfeld, Esquire, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and summary judgment was appropriate.