Dilworth’s litigators are skilled strategic thinkers who provide strong and effective representation to help clients meet their business objectives. Our team of 60+ litigators represent clients throughout the United States in federal and state courts, trial and appellate courts, and before numerous administrative and regulatory agencies.
Before entering the courtroom, our litigation team counsel clients in preventive measures to avoid problems that might give rise to litigation and alternative methods for resolving their disputes, such as negotiation, mediation, or settlement, to avoid the expense of lengthy trials. If the path to litigation is established, our attorneys aggressively engage their seasoned trial skills to best represent their clients’ interests. Dilworth’s litigation partners include two fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a prestigious organization whose invitation-only membership is limited by charter to less than 1% of lawyers.
Our litigators regularly handle complex cases involving:
- commercial transactions
- tax controversy
- intellectual property
- products liability
- construction accidents
- real estate
- labor and employment issues
- white-collar criminal defense
- personal injury
- sovereign immunity issues
In each representation undertaken by members of the Department, we strive to first understand a client's particular business concerns and objectives, believing that such an understanding is essential to representing a client effectively.
- Representation of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of a Fortune 500, public company in defense of multiple class actions on federal court, damages alleged exceed $1 billion.
- Representation of New Jersey Aluminum Company in various matters, including business tort litigation.
- Representation of Sanjay Kumar, former Chairman and CEO of Computer Associates in connection with the Computer Associates securities litigation.
- Representation of multiple Commonwealth of Pennsylvania counties to recover 911 fees due from various phone companies who are alleged to have under-billed, under-collected and under-remitted 911 fees to counties throughout Pennsylvania. See, e.g., County of Berks v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., et al. No. 15-15867 (Ct. Common Pleas, Berks County, PA) (Civil Division).
- Representation of a technology company in multi-patent litigation against major cell phone manufacturers involving network connectivity and Local Area Networks.
- Representation of various Commonwealth of Pennsylvania agencies and departments in litigation ranging from right-to-know issues (Eiseman v. Department of Public Welfare, 124 A.3d 1214 (Pa. 2015) and 125 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2015)) to services provided by the Commonwealth under the federal Medical Assistance statute, Title XIX of the Social Security Act. (St. John, et al. v. Department of Human Services of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 14-CV-6712 (E.D. Pa) (voluntary dismissal); Mendez, et al. v. Beverly D. Mackereth, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Civil Action No. 14-CV-7199 (E.D. Pa.) (voluntary dismissal); Marston v. Department of Human Services of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Smith v. Department of Human Services of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 13-CV-5670 (E.D. Pa.) (voluntary dismissal); Leonard v. Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 11-CV-7418 (E.D. Pa.) (pending).
- Representation of various Bankruptcy Trustees in litigations to recover monies paid in violation of established fiduciary duties, professional duties and/or provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
- Various civil trial victories including a jury verdict award in excess of $2.6 million against New Jersey Department of Transportation in a condemnation suit.
- Successful representation of a national bank in a family trust matter. Plaintiff alleged damages in excess of $2 billion. Defense verdict was obtained and affirmed on appeal after a 15-day Orphan’s Court bench trial. In re: Estate of Clarence A. Warden, No. 405 of 1958 (Ct. Common Pleas, Delaware County, PA, Orphan’s Court Division).
- Successful representation of not-for-profit organization in several litigations raising civil rights, defamation, invasion of privacy and/or conspiracy claims. Smith v. Main Line Animal Rescue, Case No. 12-CV-4739 (Ct. Common Pleas, Dauphin County, PA) (dismissal with prejudice granted); Blank v. The Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-3222 (E.D. Pa. and 3d Cir.)(dismissal granted; judgment affirmed by Third Circuit Court of Appeals); Myer v. The Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al., Case No. 10-04144 (Ct. Common Pleas, Lancaster County, PA) (voluntary dismissal days before trial).
- Successful dismissal, with prejudice, of claims against a large financial institution in RICO class action initiated in federal court in Indiana relating to the institution’s lending relationships. Crissen v. Gupta, et al., Civil Action No. 12-CV-0355 (S.D. Ind.).
- Multiple representations as lead counsel for Special Litigation Committees formed within publicly-traded companies to evaluate transactions ranging from $1 billion to $4 billion.
- Our attorneys successfully represented the American Financial Services Association in a series of cases around the country striking down local laws attempting to improperly regulate sub-prime lending.
- Dilworth's environmental litigation lawyers successfully obtained a $23 million settlement for SEPTA on environmental contribution claims arising from the contamination of the Paoli Rail Yard. We proved through a process known as chemical fingerprinting that the vast majority of the environmental contamination of the Paoli Rail Yard occurred prior to 1976, when the Yard was owned by Penn Central Railway Company. After extensive discovery and motion practice, during which SEPTA's legal team obtained summary judgment against American Premier Underwriters Inc., the successor corporation to the bankrupt Penn Central Railway Company, Dilworth's environmental litigation team was able to obtain the multi-million dollar settlement by proving that SEPTA did not cause the majority of the contamination of the Rail Yard which the EPA declared a Superfund Site in 1986.