PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia law firm believes the parties suing it in a wrongful use of civil process action have themselves abused the judicial process associated with such underlying complaints.
Hill & Associates filed suit on Jan. 25 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, versus CMT Express, LLC of Philadelphia, James Revels Sr. of Gibbstown, N.J., James Revels III of Laurinburg, N.C. and Barbara Ransom, Esq. of the Sterling Law Firm in Cherry Hill, N.J.
The plaintiff represented Lashonsa Stanford in a personal injury action several years ago, Stanford v. National Alumnae Association of Superman College – Philadelphia Chapter Et.Al., where one of the defendants in that action was instant case defendant CMT Express, represented by instant case defendant Ransom.
Instant case defendants Revels Sr. and Revels III were not a party to the Stanford action, but are represented by Ransom in the underlying action, CMT Express, LLC v. Leonard K. Hill & Associates, Et.Al.
In the Stanford action, claims against defendants National Alumnae Association of Superman College – Philadelphia Chapter, Tamara Hill-Bennett, Lisa Barrimond and Maria Daniels were settled, whereas claims against CMT Express were dismissed through a successful motion for summary judgment.
On Sept. 12, CMT Express, Revels Sr. and Revels III, filed the underlying case arising from the Stanford action, asserting claims of wrongful use of civil process, negligent initiation, continuation without cause and abuse of process.
The plaintiff avers a key point was CMT Express, Revels Sr. and Revels III now conceding they were trying to “end or otherwise settle the litigation” in the Stanford action.
The plaintiff in the instant case believes Revels Sr. and Revels III have no standing to assert its various claims through the underlying case and claims against CMT Express in the Stanford action were not “frivolous”, as one of their bus drivers admittedly drove the minor Stanford during the events of the case and allegedly ejected her from a bus, leaving her in Atlanta, Ga. without supervision.
The plaintiff believes there is no reason for the underlying case to be filed, instead being of the perspective that the defendants only filed it to recover costs of defense incurred during the Stanford action – actions the plaintiff feels are “improper”, “without merit” and which “constitute an abuse of civil process.”
The plaintiff believes it is improper for the defendants to try and recoup costs they incurred in defending a personal injury action; that wrongful use of process claims are not intended to be an avenue for successful parties to recover expenses in defending validly-filed personal injury actions, but to deter grossly-negligent actions or ones brought without probable cause; plus, that defense costs are unrecoverable in a negligence action, and the defendants are guilty of abuse of process.
As a result of the underlying action the plaintiff feels has been improperly brought against them, the plaintiff has suffered damages including attorney’s fees, emotional distress, mental anguish and humiliation.
Therefore, the plaintiff is seeking judgment in its favor and against defendants, plus compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.
The plaintiff is represented by Leonard K. Hill of Hill & Associates, in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 170103409
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com