Injury Lawyer Asks Court to Pull Plug on Morgan & Morgan TV Ads While Case Proceeds
Philadelphia personal injury lawyer Jeff Rosenbaum's false advertising lawsuit against his Orlando counterpart, John Morgan, is starting to heat up.
November 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM
3 minute read
One advertises that he's ”THE personal injury lawyer.” The other says he's “for the people.” While both claims are subject to debate, the one indisputable fact is that Philadelphia personal injury lawyer Jeff Rosenbaum's false advertising lawsuit against his Orlando counterpart, John Morgan, is starting to heat up.
Both men are TV titans when it comes to advertising their law firms on the daytime airwaves. But Rosenbaum has asked the federal judge presiding over his lawsuit against Morgan & Morgan for an injunction on Monday that would pull Morgan's commercials from television for the duration of the case.
Rosenbaum sued Morgan's firm and its principals in late September claiming the firm falsely advertises that it represents clients in Philadelphia and the surrounding area when, according to the complaint, it only has one attorney in Pennsylvania who has “little or no experience in handling personal injury matters.”
The Philadelphia lawyer claimed that his firm has experienced a decline in the overall number of new clients it represents because of Morgan & Morgan's advertisements. Subsequently, the firm also alleged its client-to-client referrals are down because of the allegedly deceptive advertising.
Rosenbaum even followed up with an attack ad against Morgan & Morgan, urging viewers not to be “fooled” by Morgan, adding, “If you want a lawyer who actually lives and works in Pennsylvania, and who will be personally involved in your case, call me, Jeff Rosenbaum.”
In a memorandum filed along with the injunction motion on Monday, Rosenbaum argued that Morgan & Morgan's “false advertising claims deceive and confuse the consuming public, and this deception will only continue absent the issuance of an injunction.”
“An injunction would therefore best serve the public by forcing defendants to cease its false advertising and ensure that each consumer makes his or her decisions based on true and accurate information,” Rosenbaum said in the memorandum.
Along with the injunction request Monday, Rosenbaum also filed a motion for expedited discovery, seeking to kick the case into high gear “in order that a sufficient record be developed before the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion, so that the court may render the most informed decision possible on the important issues raised in this case.”
Morgan & Morgan's attorney, Gaetan J. Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti in Philadelphia, declined to comment on Rosenbaum's motions.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleged false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and unfair methods of competition under Pennsylvania common law.
Rosenbaum also claimed Morgan & Morgan, with its multimillion-dollar budget, has outspent every injury firm in the region in terms of advertising.
“During the 12-month period preceding August of 2017, defendants have spent more money advertising in the Philadelphia market than any other personal injury firm,” the complaint said.
“Defendants have willfully and intentionally misrepresented the nature of their practice and their involvement with potential personal injury claims in an effort to deceive the consumers in the Philadelphia market,” it continued.
P.J. D'Annunzio can be contacted at 215-557-2315 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @PJDannunzioTLI.
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'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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