Thrivest's Suit Against Solo Practitioner Clears Hurdle
A Philadelphia judge has declined to toss a litigation funder's lawsuit that alleges a solo practitioner failed to distribute settlement proceeds to the lending company after his client took out a cash advance to pursue a personal injury claim.
September 07, 2018 at 03:24 PM
3 minute read
A Philadelphia judge has declined to toss a litigation funder's lawsuit that alleges a solo practitioner failed to distribute settlement proceeds to the lending company after his client took out a cash advance to pursue a personal injury claim.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Ramy Djerassi on Thursday denied Philadelphia attorney Louis Jay Arnold's motion to dismiss the case Thrivest Legal Funding v. Arnold, which is being handled in Philadelphia's commerce program. The decision to deny the attorney's motion for judgment on the pleadings allows Thrivest's breach of contract and tortious interference claims to move forward.
The case stems from a personal injury lawsuit Arnold pursued on behalf of Allegra King. According to Thrivest's complaint, Arnold “aggressively sought funding” from the company to “keep the King case alive.”
According to Thrivest, King and the company entered into a cash advance agreement in May 2016 for more than $19,500. Thrivest said the money went toward King's rent, food, medical and other expenses that allowed the case to “get to the finish line.” King's underlying case eventually settled for $350,000, with $140,000 going to attorney fees, including $45,000 for Arnold. The money, according to Thrivest, was then distributed to King and the attorneys involved in the case.
However, according to Thrivest, the funding agreement had said that Thrivest had to be paid in full before any money was distributed to the client. The agreement also said Arnold was also supposed to place a lien and security interest against any future settlement proceeds, but he never did that either, Thrivest said.
According to Thrivest, $34,782 was due on the funding agreement as of December. The lawsuit, however, seeks more than $50,000, including punitive damages.
In May, Arnold filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings saying the case should be tossed because Arnold was neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary to the agreement. He also contended that Thrivest's tortious interference claim was not viable, since none of his conduct led King to not follow the contract.
“There is no dispute that Arnold was serving as King's attorney, and there is no suggestion that he engaged in any conduct outside the scope of his representation of King,” the motion said.
Djerassi's one-page order allowing the case to proceed did not explain his reasoning behind the decision.
Attorney Aaron Moore of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, who represented Arnold, declined to comment about the case, except to note that two summary judgment motions are pending.
Thrivest's attorney, William Mark Mullineaux of Astor Weiss Kaplan & Mandel, said he agreed with Djerassi's decision, adding he didn't think Arnold's motion had merit. He also noted that both parties have summary judgment motions pending, and said it is possible the case will be decided on summary judgment.
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. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 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