Morgan & Morgan Slams False Advertising Suit Over TV Ads
Florida's Morgan & Morgan moved to dismiss a Philadelphia firm's lawsuit, calling it "grossly deficient."
November 29, 2017 at 03:40 PM
19 minute read
Morgan & Morgan
Morgan & Morgan is fighting back against a Philadelphia personal injury firm's lawsuit over television commercials.
Orlando, Florida-based Morgan & Morgan filed a motion to dismiss Tuesday, claiming that Rosenbaum & Associates' complaint fails to state a claim. Rosenbaum's claims are “grossly deficient,” the motion said.
“Instead of exercising due diligence prior to filing this complaint, plaintiffs have slung the proverbial mud against the wall, hoping desperately that some of it will stick,” Morgan & Morgan's motion said. “Respectfully, none of it should.”
Rosenbaum sued Morgan & Morgan and its principals in late September in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Morgan & Morgan advertises that it represents clients in Philadelphia and the surrounding area when, according to the complaint, it only has one Pennsylvania attorney, who has “little or no experience in handling personal injury matters.”
Since filing the complaint, Jeff Rosenbaum has created his own commercial slamming Morgan & Morgan, and asked the court to enjoin Morgan & Morgan from running its ads on television while the case is ongoing.
In its motion, Morgan's firm argued that Rosenbaum did not allege sufficient facts to show false advertising under the Lanham Act, or tortiously unfair competition methods. And with regard to the claims against the firm's principals, the motion said, there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint.
According to the motion, Rosenbaum's complaint failed to identify the false advertisements or provide copies, transcripts or screenshots, and did not describe the ads in detail. They only used “alleged excerpts” from the commercials, the motion said.
“Plaintiffs' selective use of threadbare phrases, without citing to a specific advertisement and any accompanying disclaimer, is insufficient to satisfy [Federal Civil Procedure] Rule 8,” the Morgan motion argued.
Rosenbaum has also alleged that Morgan & Morgan's ads caused him to lose business. But Morgan's motion said Rosenbaum could not show that any client who hired Morgan & Morgan would have gone to Rosenbaum & Associates but for the advertisements.
“Plaintiffs would have this court believe that there are only two law firms advertising for personal injury clients in this metropolitan area—Morgan & Morgan and Rosenbaum & Associates—and that any client who elects one firm does so necessarily at the expense of the other,” the motion said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, given the plethora of attorneys and law firms advertising for personal injury clients in the Philadelphia media market.”
Additionally, the motion argued, the conduct described in Rosenbaum's complaint—related to how Morgan & Morgan operates and advertises in Pennsylvania—is regulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board, and does not make for a private cause of action. Gaetan Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti in Philadelphia is representing Morgan & Morgan.
Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates, who is representing his firm, did not respond to a call seeking comment Wednesday.
Orlando, Florida-based
“Instead of exercising due diligence prior to filing this complaint, plaintiffs have slung the proverbial mud against the wall, hoping desperately that some of it will stick,”
Rosenbaum sued
Since filing the complaint, Jeff Rosenbaum has created his own commercial slamming
In its motion, Morgan's firm argued that Rosenbaum did not allege sufficient facts to show false advertising under the Lanham Act, or tortiously unfair competition methods. And with regard to the claims against the firm's principals, the motion said, there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint.
According to the motion, Rosenbaum's complaint failed to identify the false advertisements or provide copies, transcripts or screenshots, and did not describe the ads in detail. They only used “alleged excerpts” from the commercials, the motion said.
“Plaintiffs' selective use of threadbare phrases, without citing to a specific advertisement and any accompanying disclaimer, is insufficient to satisfy [Federal Civil Procedure] Rule 8,” the Morgan motion argued.
Rosenbaum has also alleged that
“Plaintiffs would have this court believe that there are only two law firms advertising for personal injury clients in this metropolitan area—
Additionally, the motion argued, the conduct described in Rosenbaum's complaint—related to how
Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates, who is representing his firm, did not respond to a call seeking comment Wednesday.
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 read
Settlement 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
