Personal injury law firm Kennerly Loutey, which is being sued by The Beasley Firm for allegedly withholding more than $500,000 in fees, has asked the Philadelphia court to dismiss the lawsuit, contending that the firm failed to state a claim, or properly serve the complaint.

The Beasley Firm sued in April over claims that Kennerly Loutey’s principals failed to pay more than $500,000 in fees from cases that began while the two were working as associates at The Beasley Firm. The suit, filed by James E. Beasley Jr., seeks a declaratory judgment and raises claims of unjust enrichment, and named both Maxwell Kennerly and Kim Loutey as defendants.

According to the 12-page complaint, the lawsuit stems from a confidential settlement agreement that The Beasley Firm reached with Kennerly and Loutey when they left in 2015 to start Kennerly Loutey. That agreement, the complaint said, included a list of cases that would be brought with Kennerly and Loutey to their new firm, as well as the requirements for payments of fees and costs that were to be paid to The Beasley Firm when those cases resolved.

However, the 34-page memorandum Loutey filed Monday, which raised preliminary objections, contended that the complaint failed to comply with the rules of civil procedure and were legally insufficient.

“The complaint does not specify the basis upon which plaintiff was entitled to receive these funds, nor how any entitlement would be calculated,” Loutey said. “Further, the complaint does not set forth whether there were any requirements or conditions for plaintiff to receive the funds, nor whether any requirements or conditions were satisfied.”

One of the factors the defendants also cited regarding the alleged failure to properly file the amended complaint was the computer hack that shut down much of the Philadelphia court system’s digital capabilities between late May and early July.

“Due to the virus that shut down the city of Philadelphia website governing electronic filing and viewing of case dockets [from] May 21 until July 1, defendants were unable to view plaintiffs full un-redacted amended complaint until after July 1 by accessing the docket and paying to download a full copy of plaintiffs’ filing,” Loutey said.

Beasley was dismissive of the preliminary objections Tuesday, saying text messages included in his complaint showed the attorneys had an agreement and that the Kennerly Loutey attorneys had the money in their IOLTA account.

“Now they don’t want to pay it,” Beasley said.

According to Beasley’s complaint, in January, while at an attorney function, Loutey told Heidi Villari, a lawyer at The Beasley Firm, that Kennerly Loutey owed the firm a substantial amount of money in fees and costs from resolved cases. Loutey, according to the complaint, further said that TorHoerman Law, which Kennerly Loutey does of counsel work for, had sent numerous checks to The Beasley Firm, but the firm failed to cash those checks. In a follow-up writing to Beasley, Loutey said that, after the firm failed to cash the checks, TorHoerman put the disputed money in Kennerly Loutey’s IOLTA account in a lump sum, according to the complaint. However, the complaint contended, the firm never received any checks for the disputed fees and costs.

After some dispute over the amount of funds owed to The Beasley Firm, the parties agreed that $529,604 was due from resolved cases stemming from the Actos litigation. The complaint said that, soon after, Loutey said she planned to wire the funds, but never did, and instead said Beasley had breached the agreement by allegedly defaming Loutey in a sworn affidavit in a fee dispute with her former partner. Along with fees, costs and damages, the lawsuit also seeks immediate repayment of the disputed $529,604.

The preliminary objection contended, among other things, that the complaint failed to provide enough details to support the claims.

“Plaintiffs do not specify whether plaintiffs had any obligations that were met or whether the agreement provided for any circumstances under which plaintiff would not receive any reimbursement,” Loutey said. “The plaintiffs merely assert that the duty exists without demonstrating how the duty arose. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit these sorts of generalized, conclusory allegations.”

Loutey did not return a message seeking comment.