Philadelphia Cab Company Sues Uber for $1.5 Million in Damages

By ,

On January 08, 2016, CoachTrans, Inc., a Philadelphia-based cab company sued Uber Technologies, Inc. for tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, prima facia tort, and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Plaintiff is seeking at least $1.5 million in damages.

CoachTrans, which owns three cabs, has seen the value of its taxicab medallions, which are required by law for anyone who wants to operate a cab in Philadelphia, drop in net worth from $500,000 down to $80,000 following Uber’s rise in the city. The lawsuit alleges that by identifying itself as a “taxi” in commerce, Uber made a “false and misleading” statement to the public and such statement has caused and continues to cause “competitive or commercial injuries to Plaintiff.”

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: OHSA- Tightening Policies and Increasing Penalties

By ,

For the first time in 25 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can significantly raise penalties. A small provision in the recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act will allow an increase in penalties of up to 82%. Today, the maximum penalty any employer can receive is $70,000. As these fine limits have been in place since 1990, many larger businesses could see these penalties as the cost of doing business, rather than as fines.

Recently, two local construction companies are facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines after OSHA issued citations when it was discovered that these companies where breaking strict safety polices. One violation included failure to report the hospitalization of a worker who fell 40 feet according to the US Department of Labor. The second company to violate the OSHA’s polices must pay $70,000 in penalties after a makeshift platform fell apart at the site of a residential development in West Chester according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The worker who was injured suffered permanent damages included paralysis from the waist down.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Maker of “Fireball” Liquor Drops Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

By ,

A federal lawsuit filed by the maker of the popular liquor Fireball Cinnamon Whisky (“Fireball”) against Jack Daniels for trademark infringement was dropped just before the New Year after an agreement was reportedly made between the two parties. Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey, which is owned by Brown-Forman, has seen large increases in sales since their cinnamon-flavored Tennessee Fire hit the shelves. In their November lawsuit, the owners of Fireball, Sazerac, accused Brown-Forman of violating their trademark by using the term “Fireball” in their Google advertisements.

According to Sazerac, when potential customers searched for their Fireball product on Google they were directed to advertisements for Brown-Forman’s Tennessee Fire product instead of Sazerac’s Fireball. The lawsuit accused Brown-Forman of using the term “Fireball” in their advertisements to create confusion amongst consumers in the market and to use the success of Sazerac’s product for their own financial gain.

The day before Brown-Forman was required to respond to the lawsuit, Sazerac filed a motion in a Kentucky federal court to drop their claims. Sazerac’s motion did not hint as to why the company was dropping the lawsuit, but a spokeswoman for the company said that the parties had come to an agreement regarding the dispute. Neither companies agreed to comment about the specific details of the reconciliation.

Sazerac’s lawsuit had asked the federal court to stop Brown-Forman from using their trademarked term “Fireball” as keywords in their online marketing campaigns and generally. Brown-Forman’s marketing campaign for Tennessee Fire, which the Louisville-based company expanded across the country in 2014 and 2015, has been largely successful. Brown-Forman’s second-quarter earnings report for 2015 indicated that a seven percent increase in sales for the Jack Daniel’s family of whiskey was made possible by the success of Tennessee Fire. The report also held Tennessee Fire responsible for a three percent expansion in total net sales for the first six months of 2015.

Since entering the whiskey market in the late 1990’s, Sazerac has caused concern and disruption to Brown-Forman. When it comes to cinnamon-flavored whiskey, Fireball dominates Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Fire and Jim Beam’s Kentucky Fire in sales. In 2014, Sazerac sold $130.7 million worth of Fireball while Jack Daniels and Jim Beam only sold $43.7 million and $22.5 million respectively of their cinnamon-flavored whiskey. Although Brown-Forman is still the market leader with 12 percent of all whiskey sales in the United States, Sazerac has caused the company to increase their marketing campaigns and compete for sales.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Regularly Represent Companies Whose Trademark Has Been Infringed Upon

The experienced Philadelphia trademark infringement lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green serve clients in complex trademark infringement cases. Our seasoned Philadelphia business lawyers have served as counsel for thousands of companies in every kind of business matter. This broad range of experience in all types of business matters has given our team of lawyers the opportunity to fine-tune their knowledge of specific legal areas such as trademark infringement. Call us at 215-574-0600 for a consultation or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Discuss Outcome of JP Morgan Shareholder Dispute

By ,

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of JPMorgan Chase & Chief Executive Officer, Jamie Dimon, clearing him and other bank officials of conducting a poorly run investigation into the 2012 trading scandal known as “London Whale.” The court said that the plaintiff, Ernesto Espinoza, did not show sufficient evidence to prove that JPMorgan acted negligently, or that bank officials publicly downplayed the company’s losses of $6.2 billion.

Bruno Iksil, the man responsible for JPMorgan’s losses in its chief investment office, made such enormous bets that he became known as the “London Whale” in financial circles.

According to Chief Judge Robert Katzman, JPMorgan conducted an extensive investigation into Iksil’s questionable wagers and took steps to make some of the changes requested by Espinoza, including pay cuts and improved controls. Katzman also said that it is not the court’s place to question board decisions, nor is JPMorgan under any obligation to provide Espinoza with any further details about their decisions surrounding the “London Whale” investigation.

The appeals court revisited the case after consulting the Delaware Supreme Court on how to evaluate cases like this in the future.

In an effort to settle U.S. and British probes into Iksil’s misconduct, JPMorgan admitted wrongdoing and has paid over one billion dollars. Two former traders from the company have been charged with covering up losses that were linked to Iksil. Iksil, a French national, is cooperating with officials.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Shareholder Disputes

 If you are involved in a shareholder dispute, our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the experience and resources to provide you with top-notch legal representation. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online for a confidential consultation. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Pittsburgh Paid Sick Leave Act Ruled Invalid

By ,

Less than six months after being signed into law, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County has ruled that the Paid Sick Leave Act is invalid and unenforceable. The law required employers to provide employees a minimum of one hour of paid sick time per thirty-five hours worked, with the minimum accrual dependent upon the number of employees.

Plaintiffs claimed that the city does not have the authority to enact the ordinance under what is known as the “Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law”. This law states that a “home rule municipality, such as Pittsburgh, ‘shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers’ unless expressly provided by statutes”.  The Court determined that the Act did just that, in violation of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law. As a result of this case, companies with operations in Pittsburgh need not update their sick and paid leave policies.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: “Cadillac Tax” Delayed until 2020

By ,

On December 18, 2015, President Obama approved a spending and tax package that includes a two-year delay of the so-called “Cadillac Tax”. This tax will impose a forty percent excise tax group health plans to the extent their total annual premium costs exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. This tax is intended to motivate employers and carriers to find a way to reduce the costs of employee health coverage.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Elements of Defamation in Pennsylvania

By ,

Defamation is a tort that holds individuals liable for false statements, spoken or written, which harm the reputation of another.  In general, a defamation complaint must be sufficient to identify the accused defamer and outline the circumstances of the publication of the false statements.  The tort protects public figures as well as private individuals and is interpreted under state law.  The statute of limitations is one year for bringing an action for defamation.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of the tort are outlined in the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA).  The burden is initially on the Plaintiff to prove each element: 1. The defamatory character of the communication, 2. Its publication by the Defendant, 3. Its application to the Plaintiff, 4. The recipient’s understanding of its defamatory meaning, 5. The recipient’s understanding of it as intended to be applied to the Plaintiff, 6. Special harm resulting to the Plaintiff from the publication (actual damages that are economic or pecuniary). 7. Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion (the publication was not reasonably necessary due to common interests).

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Aetna Kickback Lawsuit

By ,

EDPA Denies Defendant BlueWave Healthcare Consultants’ Motion to Dismiss, Allowing Aetna’s Doctor Kickback Suit to Continue

On December 29, 2015, U.S. District Judge Robert F. Kelly of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied BlueWave Healthcare Consultants, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Aetna alleging Defendants paid doctors kickbacks to order unnecessary blood tests. Aetna alleges that BlueWave referred physicians in the Aetna network and told them they would be paid to refer blood samples to Defendant Health Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc. According to Aetna, BlueWave received approximately $200 million in commissions after entering into a sales agreement with Health Diagnostics Laboratory.

BlueWave argued in its Motion that Aetna failed to allege that BlueWave said anything false, one of the elements of fraud, as well as arguing that it was not liable for fraud because it was Health Diagnostics Laboratory that submitted the false bills to Aetna. However, Judge Kelly stated that under Pennsylvania common law, a person may be liable for fraud by merely participating in the scheme.  “Thus, the current Pennsylvania law places no requirement on plaintiff to prove that BlueWave defendants directly sent the false claims to Aetna,” Kelly said. “Rather, plaintiff has the burden to prove, amongst the other requirements required for fraud, that BlueWave defendants ‘participated in’ the perpetration of a fraudulent act.”

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Lawsuit Against Merck for Unpaid Overtime

By ,

Pharmaceutical giant, Merck & Co., is currently involved in an employment class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs include 26 full time employees from the company’s pilot plant in Rahway, New Jersey. The lawsuit claims that the employees were not compensated for the extra 45 minutes they were required to work every day before their shift officially started. In addition, the company allegedly retaliated against the employees’ complaints by threatening to close the plant and take further disciplinary actions against the employees if they continued to protest the unpaid work.

The lawsuit alleges that the overtime work responsibilities were exactly the same as those performed during the regular shift, and that the additional 45 minutes per day added up to 3.75 hours per week of unpaid overtime work.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represents Employees in Overtime Claims Lawsuits

The Fair Labor Standards Act, and other state laws, protect employees’ rights to receive compensation for overtime hours worked. If your rights have been violated by your employer and you have not received the payment you deserve for hours worked, contact Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green so that we may examine the details of your case and pursue the best course of action on your behalf. For a confidential consultation, call our offices at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Dental Practice Lawsuit for Sexual Harassment

By ,

Employees of an Atlantic City dental practice have filed a lawsuit in Superior Court, alleging that two male co-workers subjected them to sexual harassment. The group of current and former employees claim that their co-workers made unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate comments and touched them without their consent. According to the lawsuit, the dental practice where they worked functioned as a “sexual harassment playground.”

The female employees assert that they were required to submit to these unwanted sexual advances or they would face adverse employment consequences. They claim that submitting to the sexual harassment was a condition of their employment and any employees that did not comply were either punished or ignored.

According to the lawsuit, the owners of the dental practice were complicit with the harassment. The employees assert that the owners were fully aware of the male employees’ actions, and even went so far as to retaliate against female employees who complained about the harassment. According to the plaintiffs, the owners responded to complaints of sexual harassment with termination, disparate treatment and increased scrutiny of complaining employees.

The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial. They are seeking money damages, attorney’s fees, and the costs of the lawsuit.

Sexual harassment is one of the most well known types of employment discrimination. Unfortunately, sexual harassment in the workplace is an all too common matter. If you believe that you are the victim of sexual harassment and your employer has not protected you from mistreatment, you may be entitled to take legal action.

Philadelphia Sexual Harassment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect the Civil Rights of Employees

As the victim of sexual harassment, you may feel powerless, frightened and vulnerable. However, sexual harassment on the job need not be tolerated. An experienced Philadelphia sexual harassment lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help you to protect your job, stop the harassment or seek money damages. Our experienced attorneys stay on the cutting edge of recent litigation and have a thorough understanding of how the courts define sexual harassment. Speak to a lawyer today to help you determine the best course of action for your case. We will advocate zealously on your behalf to protect your rights. With offices in Philadelphia, we represent clients in Philadelphia and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today.