PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh business enterprise has raised a series of objections to claims from a local law firm, which had alleged that the defendant breached its contract between the parties after control of the business changed hands, which the plaintiff said left them in arrears for legal payments of more than $108,000.
Conway Law Group, LLC of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 1 versus Teodori Properties and Teodori Enterprises, L.P. of Washington County and Joseph Teodori, of Mount Lebanon.
“The Teodori business interests involved in this case are the result of the hard work and labor of defendant Joseph’s grandfather and father and other family members. Although other family members should have a financial interest and, on the part of Joseph’s sister Carrie Teodori a management interest, Joseph has usurped total control of both of the entities for his own benefit and gain,” the suit said.
“Conway has performed legal services for the Teodori business enterprises for over 40 years. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees have been paid without contest or objection. The arrangement between Conway and the Teodori business enterprises, including up until the very recent time, was that the Teodori business entities, or individual family members, would contact Conway and inform him what services were needed. Conway would thereupon open a separate file, give the file a number for his own accounting purposes, and bill the file at the then existing hourly rate for the services that were performed. Conway would then provide periodic statements of account for each of the separate legal matters. Until the recent time, the Teodori entities paid Conway’s bills in full without objection and with moderate delay.”
The plaintiff’s fee for these services was $250 per hour, an amount known to the defendants, and the suit outlined the specific legal duties performed by the plaintiff for the defendants.
“Conway performed all of the legal services identified on the statements of account for the various legal matters listed herein, from a period of time in early 2018 to early 2021, save for one service in 2012 which had not been paid. All of the services performed by Conway were performed in a skillful, competent, professional manner, and within the standard of practice for attorneys performing those types of services,” the suit stated.
“Joseph is liable as the general partner of Properties. Defendants Properties’ and Joseph’s refusal to pay the sums requested constitute a breach of contract and a failure to make payment on account as obligated, for which judgment is sought.”
UPDATE
In a March 15 brief in support of preliminary objections, the defendants argued that the case was both legally insufficient and included scandalous and impertinent matter, intended to “harass and annoy” it.
“Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2128(a) requires that Conway assert its claim against either [Teodori] Enterprises and [Teodori] Properties or the general partner(s) ‘trading as’ [Teodori] Enterprises or [Teodori] Properties. The rules do not permit Conway to sue both the entity and its partners trading as the entity. Because the complaint does not comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2128, it must be dismissed,” the objections stated, in part.
“Count One of the complaint alleges that [Teodori] Enterprises owes outstanding balances totaling approximately $84,000; while Count Two alleges that [Teodori] Properties owes outstanding balances totaling approximately $24,000. Nonetheless, the ad damnum clauses request judgment be entered against each Defendant in the combined amount of $108,383. The complaint identifies [Teodori] Enterprises and [Teodori] Properties as separate entities, asserts separate breach of contract claims against each, and pleads no basis for one to be liable for the debts of the other. The complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a claim against [Teodori] Properties for the alleged debts of [Teodori] Enterprises, and vice versa.”
The remaining two objections pointed to the complaint’s supposed “legal insufficiency” and “inclusion of scandalous and impertinent matter.”
“In Paragraph 10 of the complaint, Conway cursorily describes its business relationship with the defendants and how legal services were typically arranged. Specifically, Conway alleges that ‘Teodori business entities, or individual family members, would contact Conway and inform him what services were needed.’ Conway alleges that it would ‘thereupon open a separate file, give the file a number for his own accounting purposes, and bill the file at the then existing hourly rate for the services that were performed.’ Conway ‘would then provide periodic statements of account for each of the separate legal matters,” per the objections.
“These superficial allegations fail to specify whether the agreement to handle each matter was oral or written as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(h) and, to the extent the agreement was written, Conway fails to attach it to the complaint as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i). Conway does, however, specifically allege that the amounts alleged to be due are based on written ‘statements of account’ generated for each individual matter. But Conway fails to attach to the complaint these statements of account upon which its claims are based in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i).”
“Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint disclose confidential information about the Teodori family businesses that Conway learned by virtue of the attorney-client relationship, and which have no bearing on the claims set forth in the complaint. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint are immaterial to Conway’s simple claims of non-payment. And they are scandalous because they are included only to harass Joseph Teodori and damage his professional reputation.”
For two counts of breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking judgment in its favor and against the defendants for a sum of $108,383, plus interest and any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by John E. Quinn of Quinn Logue, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Chad I. Michaelson and Justin D. Beck of Meyer Unkovic & Scott, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-002334
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com