FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE –
Philadelphia, PA – Fishkin Lucks LLP has opened a new office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and added a senior lawyer to lead that office, David Lodge. According to Andy Fishkin, “our new office in Center City is consistent with the Firm’s plan for sensible, client-driven growth. The office is a natural extension of our growing practice in the Commonwealth and provides real value to clients who continue to look to the Firm as their go to counsel there.” Steven Lucks added, “as our level of activity before Pennsylvania courts has continued to grow, the question was no longer whether we should open an office there, but who was the right person to help lead that office. David Lodge is that right person. Andy and I, and others in our Firm, have had the great pleasure of working with Dave on a number of matters over the past several years, during which time we got to know him both professionally and personally. He is a wonderfully talented lawyer whose philosophies and values align perfectly with the philosophies and values on which our Firm was founded and that continue to guide us. Dave is an excellent addition who will help the Firm continue to deliver exceptional value not only in matters pending in Pennsylvania, but throughout the country.”
The Firm secured today a complete dismissal on behalf of its client, a national life insurance company, in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Kornreich, J.). Plaintiff brought claims against the Firm’s client in connection with a life insurance policy that he purchased on the secondary market, claiming that (i) he was defrauded into believing the life insurance policy was governed by New York law, (ii) he was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the policy was valid and the death benefit would be paid out when the insured died, and (iii) the Firm’s client should be ordered to disclose precisely how it was calculating premiums on the policy. After a lengthy hearing on the motion, the Court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, finding that plaintiff’s fraud claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for declaratory judgment that the policy was valid where there was no judiciable controversy with respect to that issue—the insured was still alive, no claim had been made, and, as the Court acknowledged was standard procedure in the insurance industry in these circumstances, the Firm’s client had not yet made a determination as to the validity of the policy. Finally, the Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to what amounted to mandatory injunctive relief regarding the calculation of premiums where plaintiff never even alleged that he was being overcharged.
Fishkin Lucks is pleased to announce that Andy Fishkin was named a 2017 Super Lawyer® in the area of Civil Litigation, and Steven Lucks was named a 2017 “Rising Star” in the areas of Civil Litigation by Super Lawyers®, the premier rating service for the legal community. Super Lawyers® bestows the “Super Lawyer” designation upon top lawyers in the country, and the “Rising Star” designation upon “the top up-and-coming attorneys” who are 40 years old or younger. The selection process is a multi-phased, rigorous combination of peer nominations and review by an attorney-led research team. Lawyers nominated Andy and Steve based on first-hand observations of them in the courtroom, including as opposing counsel and co-counsel. Less than 5 percent of lawyers receive the prestigious Super Lawyer designation, and less than 2.5 percent of lawyers under the age of 40 are selected as Rising Stars.
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Kornreich, J.), granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss today, dismissing as time-barred an action alleging that its client, the principal of an investment firm, had engaged in fraud, breached fiduciary duties and committed RICO violations in connection with investments made through his firm in 2006. Plaintiffs had brought similar claims against the Firm’s client in an earlier action in the state of Florida, which claims had also been dismissed. Plaintiffs argued that, pursuant to a provision of New York’s civil practice law, they had a six month window after the dismissal to re-file the action in New York, irrespective of the applicable statutes of limitations. At a hearing on the motion, the Court adopted the Firm’s position that the provision relied upon by plaintiffs did not apply when the previously-dismissed action had been brought outside the state of New York.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Simandle, C.J.) granted today the Firm’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit brought against our client, the state District Superintendent of the state-operated Camden City School District. Plaintiffs, four former principals and vice principals in the District, alleged that the District Superintendent fraudulently induced their retirement/resignation by misrepresenting the fact that a District evaluator did not hold the appropriate license to conduct plaintiffs’ performance evaluations. According to plaintiffs, the District evaluator’s negative reviews of plaintiffs constructively forced their resignations/retirement because they led to actual/impending tenure charges. Plaintiffs argued their “involuntary” resignations deprived them of their due process right to continued tenured employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it was based on an allegedly material misrepresentation that the District evaluator held the appropriate license to conduct such evaluations. Plaintiffs also asserted various common law tort claims. Following extensive briefing, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the action because, as we argued, the District Superintendent is a State officer sued in his official capacity, and therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Court also found that contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the District evaluator was not required to hold the license alleged by plaintiffs, and thus there was no misrepresentation regarding the evaluator’s credentials.
A copy of the Court’s decision can be found here.
The Superior Court of New Jersey (Camden County) entered summary judgment today in favor of the Firm’s client, a Fortune 500 specialty chemical company, in a significant product liability/wrongful death action involving alleged occupational exposures to our client’s solvents. Following a hearing on the Firm’s motion for summary judgment, the Court agreed with our argument that pointed discovery revealed there was no issue of fact that the Firm’s client’s products did not cause or contribute to the decedent’s injuries and death. The Court’s timely decision allows the client to avoid the 24 expert depositions that were scheduled to commence around the country.
