Attorney Aims to Appeal $230K Judgment Over $25K Lit Funding Loan but Faces Roadblock
A Philadelphia attorney is seeking to appeal a nearly $230,000 judgment against him for allegedly failing to pay back a $25,000 litigation funding loan, but the judge overseeing the case has urged the Pennsylvania Superior Court not to take up the case.
March 02, 2018 at 03:36 PM
3 minute read
A Philadelphia attorney is seeking to appeal a nearly $230,000 judgment against him for allegedly failing to pay back a $25,000 litigation funding loan, but the judge overseeing the case has urged the Pennsylvania Superior Court not to take up the case.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer last month issued an opinion asking the intermediate appellate court to quash the appeal in Lawyers Funding Group v. Martucci, which resulted in a $229,875 judgment being entered last year against attorney John Martucci. The judge urged the Superior Court in a brief opinion issued last month to reject, saying that the defendants had failed “to adhere to any rule of court throughout the lawsuit, including failing to file post-trial motions to alert this court of any alleged claim of error.”
“It is clear from the defendants' persistent failure to follow court orders, their failure to participate in discovery, their failure to file any pleading to contest the entry of the judgment, their failure to attend the assessment of damages hearing or contest the results, or to alert this court at any time to any legal error, that defendants have waived any basis for appeal,” Glazer said in a letter to the prothonotary that was part of his Feb. 14 opinion. “This appeal is taken solely to further delay and/or frustrate these proceedings.”
According to court papers, Steven Marino, another Philadelphia attorney, referred his client, Jose Castillo Ramos, to Martucci to file a personal injury lawsuit. Ramos' agreement included a 40 percent contingent fee that Martucci and Marino would split.
The complaint said Martucci then sold “all right, title and interest” in the fee he would get from Ramos' suit to Lawyers Funding Group for $25,000. The agreement said Martucci had to pay back the $25,000, plus a 5 percent per month, or $1,250 per month, interest fee starting from 10 days after Martucci received the fees from the Ramos case. As an assurance under the agreement, Marino agreed to execute an escrow agreement, which the complaint said was a material condition of the agreement.
Ramos' case eventually came to a verdict for $746,000, and, in about August 2014, the legal fee of $149,237 was distributed to each Martucci and Marino.
The complaint said the litigation funder repeatedly demanded payment from Marino and Martucci, but they did not pay back the loan. The defendants sued Martucci for breach of contract and conversion, and sued Marino for negligence and breach of contract and fiduciary duty.
Marino responded by arguing the claims needed to be handled in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court's commerce case management program and that Lawyers Funding Group's claims were deficient. Marino's was eventually transferred there before the matter settled for an undisclosed sum.
According to court records, a default judgment was entered against Martucci in July for $180,290. Martucci petitioned to have the judgment opened, and, after proceedings were allowed to continue, a discovery sanction was entered against Martucci in February. Following a damages assessment held in April, the court entered judgment against Martucci for $229,875, and he filed an appeal in July.
Calls placed Friday to a number listed for Martucci rang for more than a minute before a recorded greeting said no one was available at that number.
Kyle Heisner of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, who represented Marino, declined to comment, and Michael Eidel of Fox Rothschild, who represents Lawyers Funding Group, did not return a call seeking comment.
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 AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
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