Rosenbaum's Suit Against Morgan & Morgan Again Avoids Dismissal
The judge said Rosenbaum laid out claims regarding the 200 ads sufficient enough to withstand initial legal scrutiny.
April 12, 2018 at 06:52 PM
3 minute read
About three months after surviving a motion to dismiss, a portion of Philadelphia lawyer Jeffrey Rosenbaum's false advertising lawsuit against Florida-based personal injury firm Morgan & Morgan's advertising campaign in Pennsylvania has once again avoided preliminary dismissal.
U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Morgan's motion for partial motion to dismiss Rosenbaum's claim that his firm lost money allegedly because Morgan falsely portrayed itself as having a presence in Pennsylvania when it only has one licensed attorney in-state.
Kearney said Rosenbaum laid out claims regarding the 200 ads sufficient enough to withstand initial legal scrutiny.
“In essence, Morgan & Morgan and the individuals are asking us to examine each statement in a vacuum and strike Rosenbaum's allegations about certain statements because those statements are not misleading in isolation,” Kearney said in his opinion. “We decline this exercise at the motion to dismiss stage because it is not clear from Rosenbaum's allegations whether certain statements also appear in an advertisement with the allegedly misleading disclaimer.”
He continued, “The full factual record of summary judgment is the time to examine each advertisement in context and determine whether they are false or misleading instead of examining the statements in isolation based solely on allegations. At this stage, Rosenbaum sufficiently pleads a claim under the Lanham Act relating to Morgan & Morgan's television advertisements.”
Gaetan J. Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, who is representing Morgan & Morgan, declined to comment. Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates did not respond to a request for comment.
Rosenbaum's suit, filed in federal court in Philadelphia in September, alleges that Morgan & Morgan's ubiquitous ads are deceptive because the firm doesn't represent clients in Pennsylvania and draws away potential clients from Rosenbaum & Associates. He also sought an injunction requiring Morgan & Morgan to pull its ads off television for the duration of the case, though he later withdrew that filing.
Previously, Kearney denied Morgan & Morgan's motion to dismiss the false advertising claims, allowing them to move forward against the Morgan firm, John Morgan, and attorney Scott Weinstein in relation to several statements made in commercials: “I'm your lawyer”; “We're all here for you” and “Our family is here for your family”; “You don't pay us unless we're successful”; and that the firm is “not a referral service.”
The judge said Rosenbaum has made plausible claims that the statements could mislead prospective clients in Pennsylvania into thinking that the Orlando-based firm and its lawyers—only one of which is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania—will get individual attention from members of the Morgan family.
Kearney dismissed claims related to Morgan & Morgan's billboard and internet advertising.
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
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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