Criminal Law

• Money Laundering
  To meet our legal and regulatory obligations, such as our obligations under ‘know your customer’ or anti-money laundering rules...
• Hit and Run
  An individual in an insurance subrogation matter stemming from a hit-and-run accident where the car that fled the scene was identified as belonging to our client. We convinced opposing counsel that our client had sold the car for cash prior to the hit-and-run and to dismiss him from the case.

Business and Corporate Law

• Corporate Law

Property Law

• Land Use and Zoning

Immigration Law

• Removal Defense

Health Law

• Personal Injury
  Should the district court’s class certification order be stayed pending appeal? Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff applied for and was granted short and then long term disability benefits. The plaintiff had separately filed a civil action against the other party involved in the accident that resulted in the plaintiff receiving monetary compensation. The defendant sought reimbursement of the LTD benefits paid. The plaintiff originally agreed to pay the defendant a portion of the settlement, but then filed suit on the basis that the plan permitted the defendant to obtain reimbursement only for “Other Income Benefits” and that personal injury recoveries were not within the plan’s definition of “Other Income Benefits.” After filing suit, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was granted. The defendant appealed the class certification ruling and sought a stay of the District Court’s order. The defendant contended that, absent a stay, there would be confusion among the current class members if the class was decertified on appeal, that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, the failure to grant a stay would cause irreparable harm without causing harm to the plaintiff or class and there was a high likelihood of success on the merits. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court considered the following four factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. The Court agreed that a stay was unlikely to harm the plaintiff or class, but held that the balance of the factors weighed against a stay. The motion was, therefore, denied.