October 05, 2007 : Michael B. Pullano Gains Court Victories
Philadelphia-based partner Michael B. Pullano was successful in obtaining dismissals for clients in several cases in September 2007. On September 13, Judge Manfredi of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted preliminary objections in a professional negligence case. Notably, the plaintiff had a previous conviction of possession of child pornography in 2001. In 2004, he informed Mr. Pullano's client, a priest, of his transgression in a non-confession environment. The priest subsequently contacted two people regarding the Plaintiff's conviction so as to protect any of the children the Plaintiff was working around. The Plaintiff claimed severe emotional distress and argued that the priest had violated the priest-penitent privilege in informing others of the conviction. Plaintiff sought $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
On September 18, Judge Griffith of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of an equipment distributor in a case where Plaintiff was injured when a forklift allegedly malfunctioned ,causing the plaintiff significant injuries to his foot and forcing Plaintiff to miss work for one year. The Plaintiff argued that the distributor negligently maintained the piece of equipment and that its negligence caused Plaintiff's accident. Plaintiff's demand on eve of trial was $500,000.
On September 22, Judge Sanches of the United States District Court in Philadelphia granted a motion to dismiss in favor of Mr. Pullano's client, a public defender in Northampton County, who was sued for alleged violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff, as a minor, was arrested for an alleged sexual assault and was held at detention facility until his trial was complete. The Plaintiff eventually pled guilty to a lesser summary offense and was released. Plaintiff alleged that the public defender, prosecutor and judges had committed various violations of his civil rights by causing him to remain in custody for an extended period of time. Plaintiff's demand was $750,000.