Commercial Litigation: (2017) Silverberg v. SML Acquisition LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27204 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2017)
Computer Fraud Litigation: (2015) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) Injunction Representation in Federal Court. M.D. Pa. 3:15-cv-00428-RDM.
Class Action: (2015) Co-counsel in consumer class action. (Overview: Co-counsel for Plaintiffs in consumer class action against bank for Uniform Commercial Code violation); M. D. Pa. 3:13-cv-02939-MEM.
IRS Litigation: (2015) United States [IRS] v. H., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27529 (3:13-cv-338 – M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2015)(Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge)(Opinion filed 3/6/2015: Doc. 37)(Overview: denying IRS motion for summary judgment in foreclosure action against tenancy by the entireties real property owned in Pennsylvania).
Complex Defamation Litigation: (2014) [Co-counsel in] J. et al v. S. T. et al, 2014 Pa. Super. 49 (2014)
White Collar Defense: (2014)[D.N.J. Pro Hac Vice Representation] Complex Wire Fraud. (Overview: Lead defense counsel in multi-million dollar international VOIP wire fraud case); D. N. J. 3:11-cr-00280-PGS-1.
Complex Commercial Litigation, Multistate Litigation, IP Litigation: (2013) Motion to Stay M.D. Pa. Case Pending Resolution of “Second-Filed” Issue in W.D.N.C. case. M.D. Pa. 3:13-cv-01361-MEM.
First Amendment Political Retaliation Litigation: (2013) “[District] settles with former employee,” The Times-Tribune (Scranton, PA)(Published: April 19, 2013) by Katie Sullivan (Overview: “A … resident who claimed he was fired from his position as supervisor of buildings and grounds . . . for political reasons, including where he lived, has settled a lawsuit against the district out of court….”); M.D. Pa. 3:12-cv-01139-RDM-MM.
ADA Litigation, Employment Litigation, Implied-in-Fact Contract Litigation: (2012) M.M. v. . . . County, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136819, 2012 WL 4450853 (3:11-0096 – M.D. Pa. 2012); M.M. v. . . . County, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71343, 2011 WL 2607174 (3:11-0096 – M.D. Pa. 2011)(Held, inter alia: “[Plaintiff] has adequately alleged facts from which the Court can draw the reasonable inference of an implied-in-fact contract…. the circumstances surrounding his hiring suggest that the parties agreed [Plaintiff] would not be terminated based on the presence of his defibrillator. Additionally, the move from Florida to Pennsylvania could constitute sufficient additional consideration to find that an implied contract for employment existed. Thus, dismissal of this claim is not warranted.”); see, also, “Citing violations of Americans with Disabilities Act, prison guard sues county,” The Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania), STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, Jan. 19, 2011.
Habeas Corpus, Post-Conviction Representation, White Collar, Securities Fraud: (2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1170, 2011 WL 43457 (M.D.Pa. 2011)(Overview: Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 GRANTED because review of the BOP’s responses to petitioner federal inmate’s requests for administrative relief revealed that the BOP failed to separately consider a full residential reentry center placement as an incentive under 42 U.S.C.S. § 17541(a)(1)(G), as required.).
RICO Litigation, Fraud, Complex Business Litigation, Veil-Piercing Litigation: (2011) – 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101793 (3:10-cv-432 – M.D.Pa. 2011)(RICO and related claims); 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101818 (M.D.Pa. 2011); 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143686 (M.D.Pa. 2010).
Injury and Tort Litigation, Multi-Vehicle Truck Accident, Federal Court Injury Case: (2011) – 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12613 (3:07-cv-1490 – M.D.Pa. 2011)
Grand Jury, Speech, Defamation Litigation: In re Investigation of . . ., (2010) – 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77082, 39 Media L. Rep. 2689 (3:10-0221 – M.D.Pa. 2010)(Overview: Denying newspaper’s Motion for Access to Certain Grand Jury Materials because, inter alia, the pursuit of additional discovery and, perhaps, better evidence, is not a basis to compromise grand jury secrecy.)
First Amendment Free Speech Litigation: (2010)(Overview: first amendment free speech claims against school district); M.D. Pa. 3:09-cv-01226-TIV.
Federal Criminal Law, Federal Sentencing Representation: (2009) Federal Sentencing (Overview: Sentence of 1 day of imprisonment for Defendant convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine); M.D. Pa. 3:03-cr-00032-EMK-5.
Employment Litigation, Jury Trials: (2008) Defense verdict (Overview: Defense jury verdict in employer representation); M.D.Pa. 3:05-cv-556-MEM.
IP Litigation, Federal Civil Procedure Disputes: (2008) – 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56773, 2008 WL 2914371 (4:08-CV-00484 – M.D.Pa. 2008)(Overview: In intellectual property dispute, Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default).
Contract Litigation, Statutory Litigation, Employment Litigation, Choice of Law Disputes: (2007) – 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20253, 2007 WL 906417 (3:CV-03-1137 – M.D.Pa. 2007 – Vanaskie, J.).
Jury Trial, Interstate Fraud Case: (2006) E.D. Pa. Defense verdict (Overview: Defense jury verdict for corporate defendant in E.D. Pa. federal interstate fraud case); E.D.Pa. 2:04-cv-02702-JPH.
Civil Conspiracy Litigation, Federal Motions Practice: (2006) G. v. M., 549 F. Supp. 2d 621 (M.D.Pa. 2006); 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18492 (M.D.Pa. 2006).
Summary Judgment Obtained in Note Dispute: (2006) T. v. C. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2253, 2006 WL 166574 (04-cv-2702 – E.D. Pa. 2006)(Overview: Corporation was GRANTED partial summary judgment as to job applicant’s breach of promissory note claim. Note unambiguously disclosed that it was executed by purported corporate employee in his individual capacity.).
Jury Trial, Employment Discrimination Litigation: (2005) Defense verdict (Overview: Defense jury verdict in federal court for individual defendant in employment discrimination case); M.D. Pa. 3:02-cv-00805-JEJ.
Sentencing Appeal, Federal Criminal Appeal: (2005) United States v. J., 142 Fed. Appx. 653, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20029 (04-2796 – 3d Cir. 2005)(Overview: Sentencing VACATED with remand for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker and United States v. Davis).
Commercial Dispute, Statute of Frauds Litigation: (2005) K. v. W., 71 Pa. D. & C 4th 157, 2005 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 176 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2005, Lackawanna County).
Obtained Declination of Prosecution Post-Indictment; Defense of Counterfeiting Prosecution: (2004)Declination of Prosecution Achieved (Overview: Complex, confidential post-indictment negotiations achieved declination of prosecution in counterfeit obligations or securities prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 472); M.D. Pa. 3:03-cr-00015-ARC-2.
Commercial Litigation, Construction Litigation, Drilling Litigation, Contract Litigation: (2004) Summary judgment obtained for drilling company. (2004)(Overview: Court granted drilling company’s summary judgment motion based on gist of the action doctrine and economic loss doctrine); M.D.Pa. 3:01-cv-01931-JAS.
White Collar: (2003) [assisted with appeal] United States v. P., 336 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2003).
Lanham Act Litigation; Defended Federal Court Lanham Act Injunction Hearing: (2002) S.D.N.Y. Pro Hac Vice Representation [Note: ECF docket, erroneously, does not list pro hac vice appearance] Defeated Lanham Act Injunction Motion (S.D.N.Y.); S.D.N.Y. 1:02-cv-03631-NRB.
White Collar Defense: (2001) [Federal court defense lawyer for underlying actor in case] P. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 789 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super. 2001)(Overview: Arbitration clause in agreement arising out of confidential relationship was not enforceable unless party seeking to enforce clause demonstrated it was fair under circumstances, was knowingly entered into, and was not breach of relationship.); see, “Case Law Conflict,” The Legal Intelligencer, Dec. 17, 2001; see, “REVIEW OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS MORE STRINGENT WHEN CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP ALLEGED;” Arbitration, Pennsylvania Law Weekly; Pg. 3, Dec. 17, 2001; see, “SUPERIOR COURT GIVES JUDGES TEST TO DETERMINE IF ARBITRATION ENFORCEABLE WHEN FRAUD ALLEGED;” Regional News, The Legal Intelligencer; Pg. 1, Dec. 11, 2001; See, M.D. Pa. 3:00-cr-00318-WJN-1 [underlying federal criminal case].
Complex White Collar Trial: (2000) Securities fraud trial [Co-trial counsel](Overview: Tried several-month, complex federal criminal securities fraud trial, involving nearly-billion dollar publicly traded company and $100s of millions in alleged losses, 100s of thousands of pages of underlying evidence, numerous fact and expert witnesses); M.D. Pa. 3:96-cr-00274-TIV.
Complex White Collar Defense Funding Litigation, D&O Coverage Litigation, Ancillary Jurisdiction Litigation: (1998) [Drafted and litigated the motion adjudicated by this decision] United States v. P., 19 F. Supp. 2d 327 (M.D.Pa. 1998)(Overview: Defendant’s dispute with employer’s insurer over funding of defendant’s defense in criminal matter did not arise out of same nucleus of operative facts as criminal prosecution, and criminal court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over non-party insurer; see, DECISION OF INTEREST; Southern District; DOI, New York Law Journal; Pg. 8, (col. 4); Vol. 230, Aug. 13, 2003 (“Thus, although the . . . Court repudiated Weissman insofar as it refused to adjudicate a criminal defendant’s suit against a third-party insurer, the Court agreed with Weissman that a federal court may exercise criminal ancillary jurisdiction over a fee dispute. Without delineating the precise boundary of criminal ancillary jurisdiction, I too conclude that ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised over a fee dispute arising out of a criminal case. . . .”).