Rosenbaum Seeks Old Morgan & Morgan Commercials in False Ad Fight
Rosenbaum alleges that Morgan & Morgan's older commercials had a lasting effect.
December 13, 2017 at 04:38 PM
3 minute read
Morgan & Morgan website's screenshot.
As discovery heats up in a false advertising lawsuit against national personal injury firm Morgan & Morgan, the Philadelphia personal injury firm that filed the suit is claiming Morgan refuses to hand over copies of advertisements it ran in the past, and is drumming up business in Pennsylvania just to defend against the lawsuit.
Rosenbaum & Associates and lawyer Jeff Rosenbaum filed a motion to compel Tuesday, asking the court to ensure that Morgan & Morgan complies with discovery requests for the old commercials and client information. The Philadelphia firm argued that old advertisements are relevant to the lawsuit because they have an impact on current advertising, which is why federal courts often require corrective ads when a campaign is found to be misleading.
Rosenbaum's suit, filed in federal court in Philadelphia in September, alleges that Morgan & Morgan's ads are deceptive and have caused a decline in new clients at Rosenbaum & Associates. He has also sought an injunction requiring Morgan & Morgan to pull its ads off television for the duration of the case.
“Suppose a surgeon spent millions of dollars convincing consumers that he has an experienced and well trained orthopedic staff in Philadelphia, but his practice is in California and he only has a first-year doctor with no surgical experience in Philadelphia,” the motion to compel said.
According to Rosenbaum's amended complaint, Morgan & Morgan has made changes to its commercials since the first complaint was filed in September. Rosenbaum has also made his own commercial since filing the complaint, attacking Morgan & Morgan.
In addition to the commercials, Rosenbaum requested information from Morgan & Morgan on its clients and referrals in Philadelphia, the number of personal injury suits it has filed in Pennsylvania and the identities of the lawyers involved in those matters. The motion alleged that Morgan & Morgan has only provided information on cases, clients and referrals they've gotten since August.
“Defendants refuse to admit they are operating a referral services and, instead, have revamped their business model,” the motion to compel said. “In order to defend this lawsuit, defendants have increased their advertising budget and started signing fee agreements under Morgan & Morgan.”
According to the motion, Rosenbaum also requested information with respect to three named Morgan & Morgan clients, two of whom Rosenbaum now represents. Morgan & Morgan did not provide information about those specific clients, Rosenbaum said.
Gaetan J. Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, who is representing Morgan & Morgan, said in an email Wednesday that Rosenbaum's latest motion “is inaccurate and we will file our response in court.”
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
- 1Biden Vetoes Bill to Create More Federal Judgeships
- 2Memories of a Straight Shooter
- 3It Was a Wild Ride: Check Out the Top In-House Stories of 2024
- 4People in the News—Dec. 27, 2024—Stevens & Lee, Chartwell Law
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'It's Essential to Have a Clear Vision,' Says Matthew Carey of Marshall Gerstein
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
