908 F. Supp. 2d 545
D.N.J.2012Background
- Plaintiffs (Ciecka and Law Offices of Vincent J. Ciecka, P.C.) represented Conway in a workers’ compensation and third‑party tort claim for ~15 months before Conway terminated and hired Rosen, Moss, Snyder & Bleefeld LLP.
- Rosen firm settled the third‑party and workers’ compensation claims for fees; Plaintiffs claim an equitable share of those fees based on their prior work.
- Plaintiffs allege tortious interference with their contract with Conway and with prospective economic advantage after Conway switched counsel.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000; Plaintiffs seek remand arguing the amount in controversy is below $75,000.
- Court applies Pennsylvania law to the quantum meruit claims and finds no such action available against an unrelated successor attorney under Pennsylvania law; court denies remand but dismisses Counts I–II and part of Count III; remaining aspects of Count III survive against Rosen.
- Cut to the procedural posture: case removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441–1446; Plaintiffs offer to cap damages to avoid federal jurisdiction, which Defendants decline; court addresses choice of law and the viability of quantum meruit and tortious interference claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand viability based on amount in controversy | Plaintiffs cap damages below $75,000, seeking remand | Complaint likely exceeds $75,000; stipulation cannot defeat jurisdiction | Remand denied; jurisdiction proper; stipulation not treated as clarifying |
| Choice of law for quantum meruit between successor lawyers | New Jersey permits quantum meruit against successor attorneys; NJ law should apply | PA law governs; conflicts exist; Pennsylvania governs | Pennsylvania law applies; quantum meruit claim dismissed under PA law |
| Whether Pennsylvania or New Jersey law governs tortious interference (Count III) | Potential NJ/PA conflict; New Jersey law favored | No conflict; apply New Jersey law | New Jersey law applies to Count III; some defendants dismissed from Count III |
| viability of individual defendants' liability in Count III | Bleefeld and Moss liable for interference | LLP limits individual partner liability; no facts against Bleefeld or Moss | Count III as to Bleefeld and Moss dismissed; Rosen and Rosen firm remain viable for Count III |
| Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards and pleading sufficiency | Pleadings sufficient to state tortious interference and quantum meruit | Claims insufficient or improperly pleaded; fail to plead misrepresentations or wrongful conduct | Count I–II dismissed under PA law; Count III dismissed as to certain defendants; others survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Angus, 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir.1993), 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993) (post-removal amendments cannot defeat jurisdiction; clarify vs amend doctrine discussed)
- Samuel‑Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392 (3d Cir.2004), 357 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2004) (two-step jurisdictional analysis for amount in controversy)
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 563 A.2d 31 (1989), 116 N.J. 739, 563 A.2d 31 (N.J. 1989) (definition of tortious interference and required relationship)
- Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 619 A.2d 347 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994), 422 Pa. Super. 262, 619 A.2d 347 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (PA law on quantum meruit; successor attorney issue)
- Bruno v. Gale, Wentworth & Dillon Realty, 371 N.J. Super. 69, 852 A.2d 198 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004), 371 N.J. Super. 69, 852 A.2d 198 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004) (factors for sharing contingent fees between successive counsel)