PHILADELPHIA – A New Jersey couple accused of non-payment of more than $229,000 in legal fees from a Philadelphia law firm, have motioned to transfer the case to federal court in the Garden State, based on a theory of improper venue.
Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 9 versus Louie Aquilino and Robin Aquilino of Blackwood, N.J.
“In or around March 2020, SGRV was engaged by defendants to represent them in connection with their personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Throughout their representation of defendants, SGRV performed services including, but not limited to, the following: Preparing the bankruptcy petition and all other required legal documents, reviewing relevant financial documents, making necessary Court appearances and communicating with the Court, Chapter 7 trustee, US trustee, creditors and counsel for all parties, and representing them in related adversary proceedings. SGRV billed defendants on an hourly basis for the legal services it performed. The basis for SGRV’s hourly rates was set forth in its invoices, which were sent to defendants on a monthly basis,” the suit said.
“Throughout defendants’ representation, defendants never protested or objected to SGRV’s invoices or the accuracy of any of the time entries or work descriptions contained therein. In fact, they constantly praised and showed appreciation to SGRV lead bankruptcy counsel, Leslie Beth Baskin, Esq., during the entire course of the representation until the time surrounding the probable sale of defendants’ residence, in November 2021. As of August 2021, defendants had an outstanding balance of $151,507.19 in attorney’s fees and litigation costs.”
In order to aid in payment of the balance, the parties entered into a letter agreement on Aug. 23, 2021, in which SGRV agreed to reduce the then-outstanding balance of attorney’s fees of about $151,000 to $113,000 and defendants agreed to pay SGRV the sum of $100,000 at closing of their residence located at 2 Lamson Lane, Sewell, N.J., whose closing was then not scheduled. The agreement further stipulated that payment of the additional $13,000 balance, along with other accruing costs and fees would be paid after payment to SGRV of $100,000.
“Subsequently, SGRV learned that defendants closed on the sale of their residence, but to its dismay, SGRV had not been paid the $100,000 agreed upon in the letter agreement. SGRV has requested from defendants a copy of the settlement sheet for the closing of their residence, but defendants have refused this request. SGRV believes that the residence sold for approximately $745,000, which left defendants with hundreds of thousands of dollars in net proceeds,” the suit stated.
“SGRV believes that defendants used some of the net proceeds to purchase a new residence at 2306 Doral Drive, Blackwood, N.J. 08012 on Nov. 22, 2021 for $223,000 in cash, and also used some of the net proceeds to repay a debt to Robin Aquilino’s parents. Not only did SGRV not receive any payment of the legal fees and costs as agreed to by the parties on Aug. 23, 2021, but since the letter agreement, defendants have accrued an additional $77,835.44 in attorney’s fees and costs.”
The plaintiff followed up with a motion for summary judgment on March 11.
“SGRV and defendants entered into an agreement for the SGRV to provide legal services in exchange for defendant’s payment of those fees. SGRV performed legal services pursuant to that agreement, but defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay SGRV for its legal services,” according to the motion.
“The services provided by SGRV included preparing a bankruptcy petition and all other required legal documents in defendants’ personal bankruptcy; reviewing relevant financial documents; making necessary court appearances; and communicating with the Court, Chapter 7 Trustee, US Trustee, creditors, and counsel for all parties; and representing them in related adversary proceedings. After incurring $229,342.63 in attorney fees and costs, defendant failed to pay for SGRV’s services, thereby damaging SGRV.”
According to the plaintiff, “the undisputed facts in this case are that SGRV regularly sent invoices to defendants identifying the amounts due for legal services and after paying some of the invoices, defendants stopped paying, continued to receive the invoices, and never disputed them.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to transfer the case for reasons of alleged improper venue on April 11, wanting the case to either be dismissed outright or instead be heard in a New Jersey federal court, and for the summary judgment motion to be stayed.
“On March 11, 2022, two days after filing the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against their former clients in hopes of improperly obtaining a snap judgment. The motion alleges that there are no material facts in dispute despite the fact, as plaintiff is well aware, that the bill is disputed since defendants obtained new counsel on or about January 2022. Since then, defendants learned they have grounds for a professional negligence claim against plaintiff in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings which are still pending,” the transfer motion stated.
“Plaintiff has failed to provide itemized bills to defendants. Instead, the bills attached to the complaint contain only summary totals without any itemization of the hours expended, the hourly rates of the plaintiff attorneys, or the work performed in litigating the bankruptcy case in New Jersey.”
The defendants say their businesses were operated in New Jersey and do not own any property located in Pennsylvania – and that the plaintiff’s attorneys provided inadequate representation, both prior to and after recommending that the defendants file for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.
“As a result of the errors and omissions made by the plaintiff’s attorneys and contrary to the assurances of the plaintiff’s attorneys, defendants were forced to sell their residences in New Jersey and Florida, Sons of Steel, LLC was put out of business and defendants were deprived of future income,” the motion states.
For counts of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and account stated, the plaintiff is seeking $229,342.63, plus its costs, together with lawful interest, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and such further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Adam Filbert of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Jack Meyerson and Debora A. O’Neill of Meyerson & O’Neill, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00905
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com