Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Coin, J.). The Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss all claims alleging that our client wrongfully terminated the agency agreement of its former servicing agent in Latin America. The Court agreed that the agency agreement was terminable at will and had been terminated in strict accordance with its required notice provision.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma when, following months of contentious litigation that included the exchange of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, dozens of depositions around the country and thousands of pages of experts’ reports relating to multi-million dollar design and construction defect claims, all causes of action against our client were voluntarily discontinued with prejudice. The case arose from the design and construction of a large hospital and acute care facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Fishkin Lucks is pleased to announce that, Steven Lucks was named a 2012 “Rising Star” in the area of Civil Litigation by NJ Super Lawyers®, a magazine and rating service for the legal community. Super Lawyers® bestows the “Rising Star” designation upon “the top up-and-coming attorneys in the state” who are 40 years old or younger. The selection process is a multi-phased, rigorous combination of peer nomination and review by an attorney-led research team. Lawyers throughout the State nominated Steve based on their first-hand observations of him in the courtroom, including as opposing counsel and co-counsel. Less than 2.5 percent of lawyers under the age of 40 are selected for this prestigious honor.
Fishkin Lucks is pleased to announce that its co-founders have been admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. “Our admission to the Pennsylvania bar was a natural evolution of the increased regionalization of our practices and driven by Firm clients’ demand for our services in Pennsylvania,” said Steven Lucks. “We have been handling matters in Pennsylvania for some time through pro hac vice admissions; becoming members of the bar was really just another opportunity for our Firm to become a more valued service provider.” Steven and Andy Fishkin are also admitted to practice in the state and federal courts in New York and New Jersey and in various circuit courts of appeals, and regularly represent clients in other jurisdictions through pro hac vice admissions.
Fishkin Lucks secured today a second voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), terminating with prejudice by operation of law plaintiff’s action against our clients, a multinational insurance corporation and one of its subsidiaries. Plaintiff initially brought suit in this matter in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County), claiming $6M of damages arising from her purchase of life policies. Following removal, we secured an initial Rule 41(a) dismissal, only to see plaintiff reinstate the action against our clients several months later. Upon reinstatement, and after briefing for the Court why the action was barred under the doctrines of res judicata and settlement and release (by virtue of a final order and judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky approving a settlement of claims brought by a nationwide class that included the plaintiff), plaintiff dismissed her claims a second time under Rule 41(a), which constituted a dismissal with prejudice on the merits.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.). Following a lengthy hearing, the Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action alleging that our clients, an international financier and its principal, had engaged in fraud and civil conspiracy and breached fiduciary duties in connection with a series of loan transactions they entered into with plaintiff, a publicly traded oilfield service operator. While plaintiff alleged the loan transactions should have been rescinded, which would have resulted in a net $25M loss to our client, we were able to persuade the Court that plaintiff’s claims were barred under the res judicata doctrine given a prior litigation between the parties in London, England and England’s entire controversy doctrine.
