Since trials resumed post covid, our firm has tried 9 cases in Pennsylvania with 8 defense verdicts (1 was a directed verdict) and 1 very favorable verdict
Government Services / Municipal Law
Case Update: Faggiolo v. Borough of Ridley Park, et al.
Outcome: Procedural Dismissal Held up on Appeal with Successful Motion to Dismiss Granted by Federal Third Circuit of Appeals.
Details: Michael Schleigh successfully secured the dismissal of the complaint against the client in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On August 8, 2024, the judge granted the motion to dismiss, resulting in the complete dismissal of the case. The ruling affirmed that Court had no jurisdiction over the matter by application of the Federal Tax Anti-Injunction Act. Subsequent to this fining, the Third Circuit Court upheld this result, agreeing that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act controlled the court’s jurisdiction entirely. This outcome ensures that, barring further appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, the matter is now concluded.
Case Result: Faggiolo v. Borough of Ridley Park, et al.
Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted in favor of client.
Details: Michael Schleigh successfully obtained a dismissal of the complaint against our client in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The judge granted the motion to dismiss on August 8, 2024, resulting in a full dismissal of the case. This ruling affirmed that our client bore no liability in the matter brought by the plaintiff.
Philadelphia:
Summary Judgment
In the matter Faggiolo v. County of Delaware, U,S.D.E.Pa. NO. 23-1904, Michael Schleigh successfully obtained the dismissal of a civil rights case brought by a taxpayer against a Municipal Tax Collector and Various County Officials for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the application of the Federal Anti-Tax Injunction Act (“the Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
All of the underlying claims arose out of a dispute concerning the proper assessment and collection of local and county taxes of properties that were still titled in the taxpayer’s deceased parents names, The taxpayer failed to pursue available state remedies to challenge the constitutionality of the tax assessments and the courts agreed that the Act barred the filing of civil rights claims under such circumstances.
Michael F. Schleigh – Recent Successes
Mike obtained judgment on the pleadings on the Defendant’s counterclaim in the matter County of Delaware v. O’Leary Funeral Home, Del. Cnty. PA No. CV-2022-001702. In this matter, County of Delaware was seeking payment of various cremation permit fees owed by the funeral home over an extended period of time. The funeral home counterclaimed for breach of contract claiming that it had an oral contract with the County where it would not have to pay cremation permit fees if it performed pauper’s cremations. The Court agreed that this oral contract supposedly reached with the Medical Examiner’s solicitor, was never approved by the County Council or any designated county personnel, and as such would be ultra vires (or without proper authority) and was accordingly dismissed as non-binding and unenforceable. The Plaintiff’s claims are not yet resolved. In the same case, Mike later obtained summary judgment on his client’s affirmative claims and obtain a judgment in excess of $70,000.00. The Court specifically found that statutes of limitations do not apply to claims made by governmental agencies in Pennsylvania, and was able to obtain judgment on claims that were nearly a decade old.
Mike obtained a dismissal in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the matter Fagiollo v. Delaware County, et al. No. 2:23-cv-01904 based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction where he convinced the court that the civil rights suit was a constitutional challenge to a statutory property tax assessment regime that was barred by federal statute unless state remedies were first sought, and in this case they were not.
Construction Law
In July of 2016, Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq., obtained a directed verdict for his client in a personal injury action sounding in negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium following a five-day jury trial The case arose out of a contract for the construction of a large pole barn wherein Mr. Hardin’s client was hired as the general contractor on the construction project. Thereafter, Mr. Hardin’s client hired a subcontractor, who employed and supplied its own workers to the job site. Plaintiff, an employee of the subcontractor, initiated a lawsuit against Mr. Hardin’s client after sustaining serious injuries caused by the collapse of an improperly installed roof on the job site. At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Mr. Hardin made an oral Motion for Compulsory Nonsuit on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of a duty upon which to base its claims and hold his client liable for any injuries sustained. In granting Mr. Hardin’s oral motion, the trial court relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision of Leonard v. Commonwealth, 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2011), which previously established that a general contractor cannot be held liable to a subcontractor’s employees where he did not exercise actual control over the subcontractor or independent contractor’s work. The Supreme Court’s establishment of this rule was heavily based on public policy, recognizing that (1) contractual duties to perform work are highly delegable from a general contractor to a subcontractor; and (2) subcontractors rather than general contractors maintain particular knowledge associated with worksite hazards and can more appropriately implement proper safety precautions for their employees. Id. The trial court ultimately agreed with Mr. Hardin that absent a showing of sufficient facts to illustrate extraordinary circumstances or a general contractor’s affirmative attempts to take control of the subject job site, he does not otherwise owe a duty to a subcontractor’s employees. In accordance with the same, the court granted a directed verdict thereby removing Mr. Hardin’s client from the lawsuit.
Auto Liability
Case Result: Motion for Summary Disposition Granted in Favor of a Major Insurance Company
Outcome: Motion for Summary Disposition granted.
Details: Attorney Kenneth J. Hardin successfully secured an order in the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, affirming that a major insurance company is entitled to recover PIP funds paid to its insured. The case involved an out-of-state accident in which the insured reached a settlement that included damages covered by the PIP funds. On November 13, 2024, the court granted the Motion for Summary Disposition, allowing the recovery of PIP payments from the settlement proceeds.
In early 2013, 46-year old female Plaintiff was rearended while stopped at an intersection, in York, Pennsylvania. She had been waiting at a stop sign when her minivan was struck from behind by a car.
She claimed that she suffered neck injuries. Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, where she was examined and released. Plaintiff sued the driver, alleging that she was negligent in the operation of a vehicle. Defendant stipulated to negligence, and the case was tried on the issues of causation and damages. Days later Plaintiff, complaining of pain to her neck and back, presented to an orthopedic surgeon who put her on a course of physical therapy including massage treatment and exercise. She underwent MRIs and EMGs which allegedly showed herniation of a cervical disc, as well as related injuries and an aggravation of a pre-existing lumbar condition. She was further diagnosed with strains of the neck and low back. In August, Plaintiff had a microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and repair of the dural tear. She was discharged two days later. Other than follow up visits with her surgeon, no further treatment was administered. Plaintiff’s surgeon causally related her injuries and treatment to the accident. The physician described her prognosis as guarded, and opined that she has permanent residual symptoms that will wax and wane depending on her activity level and weather changes. The surgeon recommended future treatment, including medications, physical therapy, and epidural injections of a steroid-based painkiller. Plaintiff asserted that her constant neck pain has rendered her completely disabled, and she lives a sedentary life. She sought damages for past and future pain and suffering, and her husband sought damages for loss of consortium. Defense counsel noted that Plaintiff had been in a December 2009 car accident, which caused a neck injury, and a December 2011 collision, which resulted in physical therapy and lumbar surgery. Counsel maintained that Plaintiff’s complaints from the accident with Defendant were subjective. According to a defense expert in neurology, who examined Plaintiff, there was no evidence that she had any change in localization of her symptoms or had any new pain, and there was no evidence that she had any new injury to her spine. The expert concluded that the accident did not cause any new pain or any new spinal injury. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Defendant’s negligence was not a factual cause of injury to Plaintiff, and awarded a defense verdict. The demand was for the policy limit of $100,000.
Jacob Deane and Ken Hardin won a defense verdict in a 9-day civil trial in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas wherein the jury deliberated for two days and came back with a no cause verdict. Plaintiff’s demand was $1 million and was awarded $0.
First-Party Property
In December of 2021, the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit entered an order granting summary judgment on behalf of the firm’s insurance carrier client in a Hurricane Irma loss.
The insureds had submitted a claim to the insurer on September 12, 2017, which the carrier had investigated, accepted coverage, and paid in October 2017. The insureds later provided the insurance company with an engineering report and estimate on September 17, 2020, and demanded mediation. The firm filed and was granted a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the insureds failed to file a supplemental or re-opened claim within the required three years under Fla. Stat. §627.70132. The case relied primarily on the Fourth District Court of Appeals decision entitled Goldberg v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 302 So. 3d 919 (4th DCA 2020).
Premises Liability
Case Result: Motion for Final Summary Judgment granted in favor of our client.
Outcome: Case disposed.
Details: Premises liability case involving a fight at a bowling alley. Plaintiff alleged that our client (the bowling alley) created and/or failed to correct a dangerous condition on the premises which caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found there was insufficient evidence of a dangerous condition and summary judgment was granted in our favor.
Case Result: Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice granted.
Outcome: Case disposed.
Details: Premises liability case involving a trip and fall in our client’s parking lot. Plaintiff passed away in 2023, and we moved to dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to substitute the proper party.
Case Result:
Outcome: Affirmed.
Details: The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Trial Court’s Nonsuit Judgment in favor of the Defendants in a premises liability case. The Plaintiff, a delivery driver, alleged negligence after sustaining injuries when a shutter-style security door fell on him during a delivery.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s expert was precluded from offering testimony regarding causation due to the lack of reasonable mechanical certainty. The Trial Court determined that, without expert testimony, the Plaintiff could not establish the causation element necessary for the negligence claim. Additionally, the Court rejected the applicability of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and spoliation/adverse inference instructions.
The Superior Court reviewed the Trial Court’s decisions and found no abuse of discretion or legal error, resulting in the affirmation of the Nonsuit Judgment.
Case Result: Martinez-Foglia v Woodridge Industrial Property, LLC
Outcome: Summary judgment obtained in favor of client.
Details: Michael F. Schleigh successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of his client, affirming that a patrolling security company bore no duty to prevent a slip and fall incident on ice at an industrial complex.
Defense Verdict
In October 2023, Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq and Jacob A. Deane Esq , represented our clients a local pizza shop and the landlords of the building, where the shop operated. They secured a directed verdict in their favor in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The case revolved around an alleged accident wherein a delivery driver claimed that an overhead metal security gate on the property fell on his head during a produce delivery, resulting in injury.
During the trial, when examining the Plaintiff’s mechanical engineer, we objected to the engineer’s testimony, contending that his inability to opine on the precise cause of the gate’s fall, to a reasonable degree of mechanical certainty, warranted preclusion from testifying on causation. Following the court’s approval of our objection and the subsequent exclusion of the expert’s testimony, we promptly moved for a non-suit, highlighting that the Plaintiff was now unable to present evidence establishing causation.
The Court, in response to our motion, granted a non-suit, leading to the dismissal of the case in favor of our clients. This outcome was a testament to our effective legal strategy and the successful challenge to the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s evidence.
