Larry Pitt & Assocs. v. Lundy Law LLP
294 F. Supp. 3d 329
E.D. Pa.2018Background
- Lundy Law and Larry Pitt & Associates are Philly-area firms that advertise for personal injury, workers’ compensation, and Social Security disability clients; Lundy used a mnemonic hotline 1-800-LUNDYLAW and the slogan “Remember this Name.”
- Lundy entered referral/advertising arrangements (2008–2013) sending Social Security and many workers’ compensation matters to other firms in exchange for referral fees; at times Lundy listed Social Security and Workers’ Compensation as practice areas and ran ads claiming Lundy helps obtain Social Security benefits.
- Pitt sued after Lundy filed (and voluntarily dismissed) a trademark suit against Pitt; Pitt asserted Lanham Act false advertising, Pennsylvania common-law unfair competition (deceptive marketing and trade-secret misappropriation), and a Dragonetti Act wrongful-use claim.
- At summary judgment, the court accepted that some Lundy ads (2012–2013 TV spots and some print listing Social Security as a practice area) unambiguously implied Lundy attorneys handled Social Security claims, and that Lundy referred all Social Security matters from 2008–Oct. 31, 2013 to other firms.
- The court found Lundy had an ‘‘of counsel’’ relationship with a workers’ compensation lawyer (Lenard Cohen) and later (Nov. 2013) retained a Social Security attorney (Michele Squires), so post-November 2013 ads were not literally false.
- The court granted summary judgment for Lundy on all claims because Pitt failed to show actual consumer reliance/causation for Lanham Act monetary relief, failed to prove trade-secret misappropriation, and failed to show the trademark suit’s dismissal amounted to a favorable termination under the Dragonetti Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lundy’s advertising violated the Lanham Act (false advertising) | Lundy’s ads represented the firm handled Social Security and WC matters while intending to refer them, so ads were literally false and caused Pitt harm | Some ads were generic; where specific, Lundy had attorneys (of counsel or hired) who could and did handle such matters; no evidence consumers relied on the false statements to cause Pitt injury | Some pre-November 2013 Social Security ads were literally false, but Pitt failed to show consumer reliance/causation for monetary relief or risk of repetition; summary judgment for Lundy on Lanham Act claim |
| Whether Lundy’s workers’ compensation ads were false | Pitt: Lundy’s WC ads were false because Lundy referred WC cases and did not handle them itself | Lundy: Lenard Cohen was ‘‘of counsel,’’ worked from Lundy offices, used Lundy contact info and malpractice coverage; therefore ads were not misleading | Court found no genuine dispute that Cohen’s relationship was consistent with consumer expectations; summary judgment for Lundy on WC-related Lanham claim |
| Whether Lundy misappropriated trade secrets via Titan/SEPTA disclosures | Pitt: Sara Lundy (Titan account exec) provided photos/locations and ridership data about competitors’ ads — confidential competitive information | Lundy: information (ad content/location) was public; no confidential internal strategy or agreement barred disclosure | No evidence of confidential trade secrets or wrongful appropriation; summary judgment for Lundy on trade-secret/unfair-competition claim |
| Whether Lundy’s voluntary dismissal of its trademark suit supports a Dragonetti Act claim | Pitt: dismissal after suit filed shows wrongful use of proceedings without probable cause and for improper purpose | Lundy: dismissal without prejudice, absence of evidence of imminent defeat or lack of probable cause; ongoing TTAB prosecution undermines claim of favorable termination | Pitt produced no evidence the dismissal was a favorable termination or showed lack of probable cause/improper purpose; summary judgment for Lundy on Dragonetti Act claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and view of evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (proximate cause and zone-of-interests under Lanham Act)
- Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 653 F.3d 241 (literal falsity presumption in Lanham Act advertising claims)
- Parkway Baking Co. v. Freihofer Baking Co., 255 F.2d 641 (Lanham Act/false-advertising causation principles)