Identical case filing should yield client's dismissal, defense argues

By Nicholas Malfitano | Oct 7, 2015

Timothy D. Rau  

PHILADELPHIA – A defense attorney believes his client should be removed from a dog attack negligence case, citing a prior dismissal earlier this year from another completely identical case.

Timothy D. Rau filed a motion for preliminary objections on Aug. 7, on behalf of Korman Commercial Properties in Trevose. Rau states plaintiff Jeffrey Barber of Bensalem filed an identical complaint to the instant action in February, which is still pending. On July 2, Korman was granted judgment on the pleadings in the February case, and dismissed from that action with prejudice. The February case is currently scheduled for an arbitration date of Nov. 4.

Rau asserts the instant action “violates procedural mandates” and wants all claims against Korman likewise dismissed with prejudice.

Rau believes the plaintiff “failed to exhaust the remedies provided by Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” The defense attorney argues these same sets of rules prevent Barber from pursuing identical issues in the July case.

Rau further argues Barber’s pleadings are “insufficient," in that they don’t outline what role each defendant allegedly played in the incident. Rau said Barber’s account is based on “vague and conclusory allegations.”

A hearing in the matter was set for Wednesday at Philadelphia City Hall, in court chambers.

On July 30, 2013, defendants Richard Malloy and Vector Industrial Planning & Sandblasting of Langhorne owned and supervised a dog at their Langhorne headquarters on West Lincoln Highway. When Barber visited the building, the dog subsequently attacked Barber and bit him.

Barber asserts the defendants were negligent in not warning him of the presence of a dangerous dog on the premises, not restraining or leashing the dog, allowing the dog loose where pedestrians would be and maintaining a public nuisance.

Barber suffered serious injuries to his hand, wrist, arm, body and limbs; more specifically, severe dog bite puncture wounds, a swollen and infected right hand, wrist and/or arm, a general feeling of malaise and other injuries.

The plaintiff is seeking in excess of $50,000, plus all costs and other relief.

The plaintiff is represented by Marc I. Simon of Simon & Simon in Philadelphia.

The defendant is represented by Timothy D. Rau of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin and Mark S. Kardos of Kardos & Goch, both in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 150700868

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at

More News

The Record Network