PITTSBURGH – A Florida couple injured in a 2017 motorcycle accident which took place in Pennsylvania have reiterated the attorneys they hired to represent them in subsequent litigation instead let the statute of limitations lapse, thus preventing them from seeking damages for the injuries they say they incurred.
Melissa Pielin and Barry Lowe Jr. of Lee County, Fla. first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 18 versus Gary J. Matta, Esq., Samuel J. D’Alfonso, Esq. and Dodaro Cambest & Associates, all of Canonsburg.
“On or about March 25, 2017, Lowe and Pielin were T-boned by a car while they were riding a motorcycle in Allegheny County, PA. Lowe was driving the motorcycle and Pielin was riding as a passenger. Lowe and Pielin were severely injured in this collision. Lowe suffered a fractured right femur, fractured pelvis/left hip, fractured left wrist and finger, fractured left foot, fractured nasal and septal fracture, left orbital floor fracture, right rib fracture, and lacerations to his face and body. Lowe also suffered symptoms of emotional distress. Pielin suffered multiple fractured vertebrae, a fractured left arm, fractured right wrist, fractured left leg, fractured left ankle/foot, and multiple broken teeth. Pielin also suffered symptoms of emotional distress,” the suit said.
“After this collision, Lowe and Pielin hired the law firm Dodaro, Cambest & Associates, P.C. to represent them in personal injury actions for their injuries. Lowe had a potential negligence claim against the other driver, Akeem Gladden, and a potential dram shop claim against a bar, CarSala’s Bar and Grill. Pielin also had claims against Akeem Gladden and CarSala’s Bar and Grill. Because Lowe was driving the motorcycle at the time of the collision, Pielin also had a potential claim against Lowe. As such, it would be a non-waivable conflict of interest for an attorney to represent both Pielin and Lowe. Attorneys Matta and D’Alfonso never discussed this conflict of interest with Pielin or Lowe and instead agreed to represent both Pielin and Lowe, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The suit adds on March 22, 2019, three days before the two-year statute of limitations expired for Pielin’s injury claim, attorney D’Alfonso filed a praecipe for writ of summons on behalf of Pielin against defendants Akeem Gladden, Sal D’Ambrosio and Carla D’Ambrosio (doing business as “CarSala’s Bar and Grill”) and Lowe in Allegheny County’s General Civil Docket.
The suit continued that the defendants also prepared a civil complaint for Lowe which, unbeknownst to Lowe, they filed as a pro se complaint so that their conflict of interest would go undetected.
However, attorneys D’Alfonso and Matta never told Lowe his lawsuit was being filed as pro se, and instead led Lowe to believe he was being represented by them.
The defendants instead e-filed Lowe’s praecipe for writ of summons against defendants Akeem Gladden, Sal D’Ambrosio and Carla D’Ambrosio (doing business as “CarSala’s Bar and Grill”) in Allegheny County’s General Civil Docket on March 22, 2019, three days before the two-year statute of limitations expired for Lowe’s claim.
After filing suit for Pielin and Lowe, the defendants never attempted to make service of original process of the writs of summons.
“The Allegheny County docket for Pielin at GD-19-004215 reflects no attempts at service and instead shows that the writ of summons was reinstituted four times between March 2019 and September 2019. The Allegheny County docket for Lowe at GD-19-004217 reflects no attempts at service and instead shows that the praecipe for writ of summons was reinstated four times between March 2019 and September 2019. The Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office, Civil Process Division confirms that the defendants never paid for sheriff service and never provided their office with service instructions for either case. After September 2019, there was no further docket activity on Pielin’s case. Defendants’ case file for Pielin does not reflect that any civil complaint was ever prepared nor any discovery ever conducted. After September 2019, there was no further docket activity on Lowe’s case. Defendants’ case file for Lowe does not reflect that any civil complaint was ever prepared nor any discovery ever conducted,” the suit stated.
“Over the next several years, Pielin and Lowe believed the defendants were working on their cases as the defendants had been hired to do. At various times, the defendants reassured Pielin and Lowe that their cases were being worked on. Defendants never withdrew as counsel of record for Pielin. On Sept. 20, 2022, Pielin and Lowe’s cases were terminated by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for lack of docket activity. Due to the defendants’ mishandling of plaintiffs’ cases, the plaintiffs have not received any compensation for their pain and suffering from the injuries they suffered in March 2017. As service of original process was not attempted within the statute of limitations period, Pielin and Lowe have lost their causes of action against the entities that harmed them in 2017.”
In a March 20 answer and new matter filing, the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ allegations of professional dereliction and instead contended they were never retained as legal representation by the plaintiffs.
Rather, the attorneys explained they told the plaintiffs they could not represent them in any kind of civil action due to the inherent difficulties associated with such a move, namely that plaintiff Lowe had pled guilty to DUI and reckless driving charges.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited based upon plaintiffs’ comparative negligence. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based upon the doctrine of laches. Plaintiffs’ claims, all of which are expressly denied, are the direct and proximate result of parties or entities over whom answering defendants have neither control nor responsibility. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based upon the applicable statute of limitations,” the new matter added.
“Answering defendants, at all times pertinent hereto, served the applicable professional standard of care. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based upon the doctrine of estoppel. Plaintiffs’ claims are properly dismissed as plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof in establishing any entitlement to recovery in the underlying lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based upon failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship.”
UPDATE
On May 16, the plaintiffs replied to the new matter, denying it in its entirety.
“Paragraph 1 of defendants’ new matter is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. Paragraphs 2-11 of defendants’ new matter state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Paragraphs 2-11 are denied,” the reply stated.
For multiple counts of negligence (professional liability) and breach of contract, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus any applicable interest.
The plaintiffs are represented by Margaret M. Cooney and Brendan B. Lupetin of Lupetin & Unatin, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Ernest J. Bernabei III of Pillinger Miller Tarallo, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-000672
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com