Kang Haggerty News

Class action lawsuit filed against City of Philadelphia for improperly-issued speeding citations

October 18, 2016 | Kang Haggerty LLC

On October 4, 2016, plaintiffs Dominick Owens, Rachael Bell, and Mark Zych (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against the City of Philadelphia in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in Owens, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 161000388. The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) has been issuing speeding tickets on highways such as I-95, I-76, and I-676, knowing that it lacked the authority to do so, since at least July of 2012. Specifically, under the Vehicle Code, local police such as the PPD are prohibited from issuing speeding citations on highways such as I-95 without a speed enforcement agreement (“SEA”) with the Pennsylvania State Police (“State Police”). The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2012, then-police commissioner Charles Ramsey issued a memorandum notifying all PPD personnel that the State Police had decided not to enter into a new SEA with the PPD covering I-95, I-76, and I-676; and as such, the PPD was prohibited from issuing speeding citations on those highways within the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiffs allege that, despite the July 17, 2012 memo (that is, despite knowing it lacked authority), the PPD has continued to issue speeding citations on I-95, I-76, and I-676 to this date, without ever having entered into a new SEA with the State Police – i.e., the PPD has been operating under a de facto policy of illegally stopping and citing motorists on I-95, I-76, and I-676. Plaintiffs allege that, based on the PPD’s knowingly false representation that it had authority to issue speeding citations on I-95, I-76, and I-676, Plaintiffs paid fines, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and increased car insurance rates associated with speeding citations they received from the PPD, and have therefore been damaged. Plaintiffs also allege that they were improperly detained in violation of their constitutional rights. The complaint contains counts against the City of Philadelphia for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Kang Haggerty LLC.

For more information, call (215) 525-5850, or e-mail info@LawKHF.com.

Edward Kang Writes on Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession for the ABA’s Law Practice Today

September 30, 2016 | Kang Haggerty LLC

In the September 2016 edition of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today (LPT), Kang Haggerty’s Edward T. Kang authors the Diversity & Inclusion column, Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession.

LPT, a monthly online publication of the ABA’s Law Practice Division, is distributed to nearly 500,000 lawyers and law students across the globe each month. Current and past issues can be accessed at www.lawpracticetoday.com.

Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession

September 14, 2016 | Edward T. Kang

Law Practice Today

The Defend Trade Secrets Act and Its Impact on Trade Secret Litigation

July 11, 2016 | Edward T. Kang

Businesses develop mechanisms and procedures to cut costs, increase efficiency and otherwise set themselves apart from their competition. Methods and inventions developed to achieve these goals are often considered to be trade secrets of the business, and many businesses remain vigilant to guard their assets against a possible threat—for example, a departing employee who takes the business’s trade secrets and other confidential information and uses it to compete against the former employer.

To this end, businesses have lobbied for uniform federal legislation both to support businesses’ rights to protect their trade secrets and to ensure that their proprietary information will be adequately protected, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the matter arose. In 1979, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) was proposed by the Uniform Law Commission in an effort to provide uniformity of trade secret law across the nation and streamline trade secret litigation. Because states were free to adopt the entire act, adopt some of it, or reject it outright, many states adopted only portions of the UTSA, while customizing other sections of the act. The disjointed acceptance of the UTSA and, consequently, a divergence in courts’ interpretation of the UTSA essentially negated the “uniformity” that the UTSA sought to achieve in the first place. When facing a novel issue under the UTSA, for instance, many courts would look to their states’ “precedents” before the adoption on the UTSA rather than looking at sister courts’ treatment of the issue under their versions of the UTSA.

In a renewed effort to harmonize trade secret law, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which was enacted on May 11. Generally, the DTSA: creates a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, thereby permitting plaintiffs to assert their claims in either state or federal courts; grants the right to seek an ex parte seizure of an alleged misappropriator’s property in an effort to contain the misappropriated trade secrets; and requires that employers provide notice of the whistleblower immunity contained within the DTSA where trade secrets or other confidential information is available to employees, consultants, and independent contractors.

Fetbroyt Named to 2016 Super Lawyers’ Rising Star Lists

June 3, 2016 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Kang Haggerty founding member Jacklyn Fetbroyt has been selected for inclusion in the 2016 Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars list, published by Thomson Reuters.

For Jackie, this is her fifth time (2010, 2013-2016) as a Rising Star in the area of Business/Corporate law – Pennsylvania.

The Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars list recognizes up and coming attorneys in each state 40 years old or younger, or those who have been practicing for 10 years or less. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in each state are named to the Rising Stars list. The lists are selected and published by Thomson Reuters. The selection process includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by an attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice, and a good-standing and disciplinary check.

Practical Guide to Restrictive Covenants in PA and NJ

May 25, 2016 | Edward T. Kang

Businesses invest time and money to develop their business procedures, relationships and information, such as marketing strategies, customer information, pricing strategies, and future business development initiatives. These models and information provide businesses a competitive edge, and employers have a strong incentive to guard such assets and protect their businesses by all means reasonably necessary. Employers can typically accomplish this through using a combination of nondisclosure agreements, nonsolicitation agreements, and other restrictive covenants.

Be Careful Before Relying on the Common Interest Doctrine

April 18, 2016 | Edward T. Kang

The common interest doctrine (CID), also known as the community-of-interest doctrine, is an exception to the general rule that attorney-client privilege (ACP) is waived when privileged information is shared with a third party. The CID allows attorneys representing different clients with the same or substantially similar legal interests to agree to (and do) share privileged information without waiving the ACP.

For the CID to apply, (1) there must generally be co-parties (that is, co-plaintiffs or co-defendants—but the CID may also apply to communications between parties and nonparties, and sometimes in nonlitigation matters), (2) the co-parties must be represented by separate counsel (the CID is different from the co-client (or joint-client) privilege, which applies when multiple clients hire the same attorney to represent them on a matter of common interest), and (3) the co-parties must share a common legal interest, not merely a common commercial interest. Courts are divided on whether interests must be legally identical or somewhat less than that, such as substantially similar. And, of course, there must be an agreement among attorneys to share information.

If the above requirements are met, separate counsel for separate parties (or clients) may share information without waiving the ACP. In other words, the CID only protects communications between counsel, not between parties. Communications between parties are protected under the CID, however, if counsel is present during the communications. Continue reading ›

Kang Haggerty and Voorhees Business Association – Annual Bowling Fundraiser

April 8, 2016 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Kang Haggerty LLC is pleased to announce our sponsorship of Voorhees Business Association’s Annual Bowling Fundraiser.

The 2016 VBA Bowling Fundraiser will be held on Friday, April 8, 2106 at The Big Event, located at 1536 Kings Hwy N., Cherry Hill, NJ 08034.

Bowling lanes will be available for individuals and groups with a maximum of six (6) bowlers per lane for two hours (from 6PM to 8PM). In addition, there will be a silent auction hosted by Tri State Sports Memorabilia.

Attendees are encouraged to show support by committing to the various donations listed below: Continue reading ›

Kang Haggerty Victory: $2.25M Judgement for Vizant Technologies

April 1, 2016 | Kang Haggerty LLC

On March 22, 2016, Kang Haggerty client Vizant Technologies received a $2.25 million judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In the case, Vizant Technologies, LLC, et al. v. Julie P. Whitechurch, et al., Vizant asserted claims for breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships.

Fetbroyt Featured in Women in the Profession Roundtable

April 1, 2016 | Kang Haggerty LLC

Kang Haggerty founding member Jacklyn Fetbroyt was selected to participate in a Women in the Profession Roundtable discussion that took place at the American Lawyer Media offices in Philadelphia. The conversation will be published in an upcoming Woman in the Profession supplement in The Legal Intelligencer. Among the issues discussed were recruitment and retention of female lawyers, gender equality issues, work-life balance and challenges facing women at law firms today. The roundtable was moderated by Jami McKeon, Chair of Morgan Lewis.

Firm News