Superior Court Denies Attorney Fees for Doctor's Breach of Contract Appeal
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld the denial of attorney fees for lawyers representing a doctor in an appeal from a collection of judgment proceeding stemming from his breach of contract case against his employer.
July 09, 2020 at 03:47 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld the denial of attorney fees for lawyers representing a doctor in an appeal from a collection of judgment proceeding stemming from his breach of contract case against his employer.
A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Victor Stabile, Megan McCarthy King and Correale Stevens rejected Dr. Michael F. Szwerc's argument that his request for attorney fees was not untimely and that trial court did have jurisdiction over the matter, contrary to its ruling.
Szwerc argued Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law imposed no time limit on an employee judgment winner's request for attorney fees and costs, according to King's opinion. Szwerc won $70,000 in economic damages against his former employer, Lehigh Valley Health Network, and approximately $390,000 in attorney fees. After the defendant's unsuccessful appeal, Szwerc asked the court for an additional $156,000 in fees for the appellate work.
In ruling against Szwerc, the Lehigh County court said, "If appellant wished to pursue a claim for attorneys' fees stemming from the litigation or any dispute resolving collection of the judgment pursuant to the WPCL, he could have raised that claim within that time period. Instead, he waited over six months to file the instant motion. The [c]ourt no longer had jurisdiction to entertain appellant's request."
The Superior Court agreed that Szwerc missed the deadline.
"Instead, appellant filed the current request for fees on April 4, 2019, 10 months after this court's June 13, 2018 disposition and nearly six months after the trial court's September 21, 2018 substituted judgment," King said. "Although appellant claims that Section 5505 of the Judicial Code does not apply in this case, Pennsylvania law has repeatedly applied the 30-day time restriction under Section 5505 to requests for attorneys' fees under Section 2503."
She continued, "Furthermore, judicial policy requires finality in proceedings and cannot permit a litigant to prolong the case indefinitely by filing a motion for attorneys' fees at any time. Based upon the foregoing, the trial court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant's untimely motion for attorneys' fees."
W. Chad Pociernicki of Sherrard, German & Kelly represents the plaintiff and did not respond to a request for comment. Kimberly Krupka of Gross McGinley represents the defendants and did not respond to a request for 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 readPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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