PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh law firm stands by claims that one of its longtime commercial clients has breached its contract between the parties after control of the client business changed hands, leaving 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.”
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.”
UPDATE
After two amended versions of the complaint were filed, the defendants filed an answer and new matter on May 31.
“The second amended complaint fails to state a claim against Properties for the alleged debts of Enterprises, and vice-versa. The invoices attached to the second amended complaint are inaccurate and were objected to by defendants. As a result of Conway’s improper billing and accounting practices, defendants believe and therefore aver that they have overpaid for legal services performed by plaintiff,” the defendants’ new matter stated.
“As a result of Conway’s improper billing and accounting practices, defendants believe and therefore aver that they have overpaid for legal services performed by plaintiff. The second amended complaint fails to state any claims against Joseph Teodori and his name should be stricken from the caption of this case. Conway’s claims may be barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrines of laches and/or waiver. Conway’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Conway’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. Defendants reserve the right to plead spoliation of evidence.”
The plaintiff filed a reply to the new matter on June 3, finding largely that the defendants’ arguments constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required.
“The invoices attached to the second amended complaint are accurate and were never objected to by the defendants until recently. Defendants never contended that they overpaid for legal services performed by the plaintiff until the filing of this pleading,” per the reply.
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