Category: Breach of Contract

Philadelphia Class Action Lawyers: SCOTUS Denies Walmart Appeal

By ,

In a four-1 ruling earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review a 2006 jury decision in a class action, wage-and-hour lawsuit filed on behalf of Walmart employees in Pennsylvania.

In 2006, plaintiffs in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores and Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores were awarded $187.6 million in damages for wage-and-hour violations based on claims that the retail giant failed to properly pay employees for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Walmart sought to have the decision overturned by the Supreme Court, arguing that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient proof of class-wide commonality, only proof of individual claims. Walmart also argued that the determination of liability and damages in the case represented a “trial by formula” that had been disapproved by earlier Supreme Court decisions.

According to the majority opinion, however, liability in this case was not determined by a formula, but by evidence of breach of contract and wage-and-hour violations which were established by Walmart’s employment policies, business records and internal audits. Interest accrued since 2006 brings the current class action award to approximately $244 million.

Philadelphia class action lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been successfully representing plaintiffs in employment lawsuits for over 50 years. For more information about overtime violation claims and employment law in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Mark Zuckerberg Settles Contract Lawsuit

By ,

A real estate developer filed a case against Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook Inc., alleging that Zuckerberg reneged on a promise to help the realtor develop his business in exchange for a discounted price on real estate that would have blocked the view from Zuckerberg’s home.

Initially, Zuckerberg was to buy the rights to purchase a property overlooking his Palo Alto, California home for $1.7 million from developer Mireca Voskerician. Voskerician had asserted that he and Zuckerberg agreed to this discounted price in exchange for a customer list comprised of Silicon Valley’s tech elite after the realtor threatened to build a mansion that would block much of Zuckerberg’s view.  These allegations formed the basis of Voskerician’s contract lawsuit against Zuckerberg for failing to live up to his end of the bargain.

However, it appears the developer’s case began to unravel after Zuckerberg’s lawyers’ allegedly discovered fraudulent bank statements produced by the developer. The developer has allegedly dropped the lawsuit in exchange for a promise that Zuckerberg will not sue him.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Routinely Handle All Types of Contract Matters

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are known for our detail-oriented approach to contract law. If you have questions about a contract matter, contact one of our experienced Philadelphia commercial contract lawyers at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Contract Lawyers: Arbitration Clauses in Nursing Home Contracts

By ,

Over the past decade, arbitration clauses have become increasingly common. Look closely at your cellphone service contract, credit card contract or student loan agreement, and you are likely to discover that you have given up your right to seek redress in court in the event of a dispute. Nursing homes have also embraced these clauses. The ethics of mandatory arbitration for nursing home patients is even more questionable than in other contexts, because elderly patients may not be able to understand that they are surrendering this important right.

Recently in Massachusetts, an elderly nursing home patient was murdered by her 97-year-old roommate after a disagreement over moving a nightstand so that the decedent could make her way to the bathroom. The decedent’s son sought to hold the nursing home accountable, only to discover the nursing home contract forced any dispute into private arbitration.

The patient’s son has questioned whether the arbitration process could really be objective. The arbitration firm, who ultimately resolved this dispute, had previously handled over 400 arbitrations for the law firm representing the nursing home. Because the arbitration firm draws such a substantial amount of business from the nursing home, it would appear they might have a reason to resolve cases in their favor. In this case, the firm ruled in the nursing home’s favor, without providing any basis for their ruling. The arbitrator’s “opinion” consisted of a single check mark indicating that the nursing home had not been negligent in its care of the late patient.

Despite these issues, judges have consistently upheld mandatory arbitration clauses, even where the individuals who signed the contracts did not understand what rights they were forfeiting. However, lawmakers are becoming increasingly concerned because the private nature of arbitration proceedings can shield the public from patterns of wrongdoing in nursing homes. Recently, lawmakers in 16 states have urged the federal government to deny Medicaid and Medicare funding to nursing homes that use mandatory arbitration clauses.

In this case, the patient’s son challenged the validity of the arbitration clause in his mother’s nursing home contract on grounds that he signed the admissions papers on her behalf, but did not have the authority to bind her to arbitration. A judge found in his favor. Appeals courts across the country are following suit and throwing out nursing home contracts signed by family members of residents.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Businesses and Individuals in Contract Disputes

If you have a contract dispute, or are being sued for breach of contract, the experienced Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers: Doctor’s Case May Proceed

By ,

On February 24, 2016 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled to allow Plaintiff, Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai, to move forward on his claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Rifai v. CMS Medical Care Corporation, et al., Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CMS hired him in May 2011 for a three-year term of employment, which was subsequently renewed a year later. The employment contract provided that either Plaintiff or CMS could terminate the agreement by giving the other party at least 120 days’ notice of the intent to terminate, or CMS could terminate immediately for cause.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2013, Plaintiff was given 120 days’ notice that he would be terminated on May 7, 2013. However, Plaintiff alleged that only five days later he was terminated for cause, effective May 7, 2013. Plaintiff thereafter filed suit, claiming Defendants fired him due to his Syrian ethnic background, Islamic religious beliefs, and the perception that he was mentally disabled. The Eastern District ruled that Plaintiff plead sufficient facts to allege breach of contract and a claim under the ADA.

The Court ruled that it found “that plaintiff sets forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants regarded him as having an impairment,” specifically noting how Rifai’s complaint explained that at the time of his termination, defendants told various employees Rifai suffered from a mental impairment and was mentally unstable, unable to safely perform his medical duties.

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

Philadelphia Bad Faith Lawyers: Bad Faith Claim Denied After Court Finds No Coverage for Third Party Negligence

By ,

In Rogers v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of bad faith claims asserted against Allstate. Finding that the insured’s auto insurance comprehensive clause did not cover negligent or poor workmanship repairs by a third-party repair shop, the claim was dismissed.

The insured was involved in a collision, and permitted an unsolicited tow truck to transport her car to Collisionworks for repairs and she agreed to complete the repairs for the cost proposed in the adjuster’s estimate directly to Allstate, who then paid Collisionworks. After the car owner noticed issues with the vehicle, she filed a claim with Allstate for the car’s condition, which was denied by Allstate. Allstate claimed that the company does not provide comprehensive coverage for loss caused by negligent repairs.

After the denial the insured filed suit against Allstate and Collisionworks. The trial court sustained Allstate’s preliminary objections and dismissed the woman’s claims of breach of contract, negligence, violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and bad faith with prejudice. After reviewing the policy, the Court concluded that only certain categories of harm were subject to coverage, including: 1) weather-related risks, 2) Civil unrest risks, 3) Criminal Acts, and 4) falling objects. The Court stated that the insured’s claim, as pled, can only be characterized as faulty or negligent workmanship, and not a criminal act.

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