PHILADELPHIA – For reasons of judicial interest and convenience to the parties, a Philadelphia law firm is seeking to transfer a legal malpractice claim brought against it to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff Philip Lawrence Moriarty of Hanover initiated action against Zeff Law Firm, LLC and Gregg L. Zeff of Philadelphia in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on June 30, accusing the defendants of legal malpractice. The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 29.
The incident which forms the basis for the instant legal malpractice action involves a separate, underlying claim of legal malpractice that the defendants allegedly failed to commence against attorney Eric J. Weisbrod, stemming from his handling of two criminal defense matters – including a hearing on revocation of parole and probation, known as a Gagnon II hearing – for an Adams County criminal case, and a bail hearing in connection with charges for aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault and harassment.
Moriarty’s complaint alleges that as a result of the underlying malpractice claim, his parole/probation for charges associated with recklessly endangering another person and resisting arrest was revoked on or about April 28, 2016, and he was not released from confinement until March 27, 2018 – when his parole revocation was later vacated.
The defendants feel that in the interest of justice and for convenience of both the parties and the witnesses involved and that after analysis under the Jumara public-private factors, a transfer should be made to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
“Relevant activities giving rise to the claims in plaintiff’s complaint occurred in the Middle District; whereas none of those activities occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The underlying criminal actions took place in Adams County, which is within the Middle District, the Law Office of Eric J. Weisbrod is located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, which is within the Middle District and records relating to the underlying criminal matters are located within the Middle District,” per the memorandum to support the transfer.
The private interest factors to be considered may be summarized and restated as follows: (1) The plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) The defendant's preference; (3) Whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) The convenience of the parties; (5) The convenience of the witnesses; and (6) The location of books and records.
“Plaintiff has alleged a series of events relating to an underlying malpractice claim against his former criminal defense attorney which occurred in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff then retained an attorney who practices primarily out of his Mount Laurel, New Jersey office. Defendant eventually terminated plaintiff as a client by sending him correspondence to his residence in York County, Pennsylvania,” per the memorandum.
“In the event that the Zeff Law Firm should have commenced a claim against Eric J. Weisbrod, such claim would have been commenced in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas or in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, and therefore at issue is whether defendants failed to commence a legal action in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas or in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas. As the plaintiff’s chosen forum has little connection with the facts of the lawsuit, the private interests of the plaintiff should be afforded weight.”
Since Moriarty resides in York County, the Middle District is closer to his residence for purposes of attending depositions and trial. Therefore, according to the defendants, he will not be inconvenienced if this matter is transferred to the Middle District.
Furthermore, the majority of the documents and records are located in the Middle District. Those records include attorney Weisbrod’s files, attorney Weisbrod’s financial and insurance records, treatment records of Moriarty, Moriarty’s employment or wage history records, files relating to the two Adams County criminal matters and matters relating to Adams County Work Release Program.
These factors also lean towards transfer to the Middle District, per the defendants.
“Public interest factors including practical considerations as well as local interest in the underlying dispute weigh in favor of transfer to the Middle District. There will be no duplication of efforts in transferring the case to the Middle District as no discovery or other activity has taken place in the Eastern District. Thus, there are no practical considerations that prevent transferring the case to the Middle District,” the memorandum accompanying the transfer motion states.
“Local interest in the underlying issues surrounding Eric Weisbrod’s services performed for Moriarty weigh heavily in favor of transferring the matter to the Middle District. Courts have a local interest in deciding localized controversies decided at home. Since Moriarty is a resident of York County, Pennsylvania and the criminal matters at issue, including whether attorney Weisbrod committed malpractice as a criminal defense attorney, involve matters of local interest lying within the Middle District, this matter should be transferred to the Middle District.”
The plaintiff is represented by Mark B. Frost and Joseph P. Guzzardo of Frost & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Pamela J. Devine of Bardsley Benedict & Cholden, in Malvern.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03696
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com