Shuttering Cherry Hill Foreclosure Firm Doesn't Need Receiver, Judge Rules
A South Jersey foreclosure firm in the process of closing will not have to go into receivership because of an alleged six-figure debt to a legal advertising firm, a federal judge has ruled.
March 26, 2019 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A South Jersey foreclosure firm in the process of closing will not have to go into receivership because of an alleged six-figure debt to a legal advertising firm, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 22 denied Mansfield Advertising's request for the appointment of a receiver for Udren Law Offices.
“There is no evidence of fraud, no evidence of irreparable injury, and nothing to suggest that the benefits of appointing a receiver outweigh the costs,” Pratter concluded in the opinion. ”The court cannot appoint a receiver in any case simply because a plaintiff likely has a meritorious monetary claim against an insolvent defendant.”
Mansfield Advertising of Philadelphia sued Cherry Hill-based Udren Law Offices in August, claiming the law firm failed to pay more than $138,000 in legal advertising fees. Udren Law represented lenders and mortgage servicers on real estate matters in Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Udren has filed counterclaims asserting that Mansfield overcharged the law firm for its advertising services, estimating damages of over $367,000 from the alleged upcharges.
A trial is set to begin April 1.
Udren is in the process of winding down. According to Pratter's opinion, it has sold its book of business to another firm.
Mansfield filed an emergency motion to appoint a receiver one week after filing its complaint. In arguing that motion, Pratter wrote, Mansfield “express[ed] concern that Udren's lack of transparency about its finances may portend future fraudulent conduct.”
However, Pratter wrote in denying the initial receivership motion, Mansfield gave “no concrete evidence that Udren is spending recklessly or dissipating assets.”
After some discovery, Pratter's opinion said, the motion still fails.
In the opinion, Pratter said the case will likely turn on whether Udren Law can prove its defense—that Mansfield charged too much for its services. That factor weighed slightly in favor of supporting a receiver, the opinion said.
However, Pratter wrote, the evidence surrounding Udren's wind-down and its payments to Mansfield “do not give rise to an inference of fraud,” and Mansfield has not suffered any irreparable injury.
Mansfield had argued that the firm made improper payments to its principal, Mark Udren, and to employees, the opinion said. But, Udren contended in its response, shutting the firm's doors without a proper wind-down process would have caused “chaos” for hundreds of cases.
The court agreed with Udren on that point, noting that the payments to Mark Udren consisted of his distribution from the prior year and a repayment of his loans to the firm.
“The court is not persuaded that Mansfield has presented any evidence showing fraudulent behavior,” Pratter wrote. “To the contrary, the record shows that (1) in the period before Udren Law's insolvency, between January and July 2018, Udren Law paid Mansfield upwards of $210,000 (presumably for services unrelated to the at-issue invoices)—which is directly opposite of the narrative that Udren Law was preparing to take the money and run.”
Jessica Labella Kitain and Peter Buckley of Fox Rothschild are representing Mansfield. They declined to comment on Pratter's order.
Daniel S. Bernheim III and Katherine Ann Hopkins of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer are representing Udren Law Offices. Bernheim said he has disagreed with some of Pratter's decisions in the case, but “she's spot-on with this one.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'$10 Million? You Don't Blink at That Anymore': Are Lawyer Billboards Affecting Juries?
6 minute read'No Sir. That's Strategy': Ruling Sheds Light on Lawyer Invoices, Attorney-Client Privilege
4 minute readNew Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal Picked to Head SEC's Division of Enforcement
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Social Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
- 2How to Stop the Apology Tour, Take Back Your Life and Career
- 3Demonizing Haitian Immigrants: Welcome to the Club
- 4Florida Hurricane Relief—IRS Offers Extended Deadlines and Tax Benefits
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'When the Firm Needs Something Done, Raise Your Hand,' Says Eric Kennedy of Buchalter
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250