The Firm prevailed on a motion to dismiss a complaint against its client, a leading wood stain manufacturer, based on plaintiff's misjoinder in one litigation of several unrelated claims. Specifically, the plaintiff had alleged that a wood stain manufactured by the Firm's client had caused four separate fires, in four separate homes across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and sought to bring claims regarding all of those fires within a single lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The Firm moved to dismiss on the basis that these claims presented few common questions of fact and law, and beyond that, combining them would be unduly prejudicial to the Firm’s client. The Court agreed and ordered that the case be dismissed
