Marc Sposato, Esquire of MOODK’s Delaware Office, successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Delaware to uphold the dismissal of legal malpractice claims against their clients. Plaintiffs appealed a dismissal by the trial court of legal malpractice claims filed against their former attorneys, including MOODK’s clients, arising out of an underlying class action matter. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims holding that plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from alleging they received inadequate representation in the class action case. 

Marc Sposato, Esquire of MOODK’s Delaware Office obtained a Final Determination from The State of Delaware Department of Labor that there was no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred. The claimant alleged she was discriminated against by MOODK’s client, a trucking company, on the basis of sex for making her operate a dump truck on a site that did not have bathroom accommodations for females and that she was harassed. MOODK presented evidence and a position statement outlining that the bathroom facilities were adequate for both genders and documenting that the claimed harassment was simply instruction. The Delaware Department of Labor agreed with MOODK’s position finding there was no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred, and dismissed the action. 

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.