MEDIA – A local law firm and one of its Delaware County-based partners who accused a group of individuals of defamation and slander say their complaint should not be dismissed and is not duplicative of a prior action, to the contrary of the defendants’ arguments.
Keller & Goggin, P.C. of Philadelphia and Robert S. Goggin III of Newtown Square first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 22, 2021, versus Jack Lane and Lori Lane of Berwyn and Joseph Cooney, of Collegeville.
“All three defendants manufactured a false story detailing the theft of investor monies, and that of James Gautieri Jr., by the law firm of Keller & Goggin P.C. and Robert S. Goggin III. All three defendants published these false stories of the theft of investor monies, and that of James Gautieri Jr., to friends, business associates and colleagues of plaintiffs, and to Robert S. Goggin III’s and Keller & Goggin’s clients,” the suit said.
“All three defendants published these false stories of the theft of investor monies, and that of James Gautieri Jr., both in writing and by spoken word, and to the damage and detriment of Keller & Goggin P.C. and Robert S. Goggin III.”
Goggin continued that he and his firm were accused of misappropriating $1.1 million of investor funds by the defendants, who intended to cause damage to the plaintiffs’ reputation.
“All three defendants published these false stories of the theft of investor monies of by Robert S. Goggin III, specifically by accepting a $1,100,000 dollar investment, thereafter producing an investor note for the investor and failing to deposit the $1,100,000 in the investments’ account, instead converting the monies for plaintiffs’ use,” the suit stated.
“The third parties to whom these false allegations were published by whatever means understood the defamatory nature of the communication. Plaintiffs Robert S. Goggin III and Keller & Goggin P.C. are private persons as defined in the statute and applicable law. As a result of the defamatory and untrue nature of the communication to third parties both plaintiffs has suffered damages, special damages and punitive damages.”
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 7, for supposed lack of service of the complaint.
“On or about Nov. 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed the above-captioned action. On or about Jan. 14, 2022, some 55 days later, plaintiffs filed two time-stamped blank sheets of paper with the Court captioned ‘Affidavit of Service.’ No service has been made or attempted pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400. Defendants Jack Lane and Lori Lane respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss the above-captioned matter without prejudice and direct plaintiffs to reinstate and serve complaint according to the Pennsylvania and Local Rules of Civil Procedure,” per the motion.
The plaintiff then filed a praecipe the following day to reinstate the complaint, as it has been more than 30 days and service has not been perfected upon the defendants.
On Oct. 28, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kelly D. Eckel denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice.
“Upon consideration of defendants’ motion to dismiss and any opposition thereto, it is ordered that said motion is denied without prejudice. It is further ordered that plaintiff may reinstate and serve the complaint consistent with the applicable Pennsylvania and Delaware County Rules of Civil Procedure,” Eckel ruled.
An amended version of the complaint was filed on Nov. 7, which subtracted the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and converted the defamation count to one for libel instead.
However, in a set of preliminary objections filed Dec. 1, the defendants sought to dismiss the instant complaint due to what they believe is a duplicative prior action in the same Court – or in the alternative, grant a stay of all proceedings in the instant case to await the outcome of the previously-filed one.
UPDATE
In a Dec. 16 answer to those objections, the plaintiffs denied them and requested they be overruled.
“To the contrary, in the [prior] action the parties are Jack Lane v. Keller & Goggin, P.C. and Robert Goggin III; in this action at CV-2021-009465, the parties are Keller & Goggin, P.C. and Robert S. Goggin III v. Jack Lane, Lori Lane and Joseph Cooney. In the [prior] action, plaintiff Jack Lane asserts a single count for malicious prosecution. In this action at CV-2021-009465, plaintiffs Keller & Goggin, P.C. and Robert S. Goggin III assert Count I for libel, Count II for slander, Count III for intentional infliction of emotional distress and Count IV for conspiracy. On the facts, the Lane [prior] action asserts a claim for malicious prosecution arising from a complaint filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas at 200400487. In this action at CV-2021-009465, plaintiffs Keller & Goggin, P.C. and Robert S. Goggin III assert damages from the conduct of Lane for publishing falsehoods about them in conspiracy with others.”
For counts of libel, slander and conspiracy, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, in addition to punitive damages.
The plaintiffs are represented by Robert S. Goggin III of Keller & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by John P. Lane Jr. in Berwyn.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-009465
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com