Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. v. Porro

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 13, 2013

KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. and CRAIG KIMMEL, ESQ., Plaintiffs,
v.
JACQUELINE PORRO, ESQ., MATTHEW PORRO, DAVID P. ANGUEIRA, ESQ., and SWARTZ & SWARTZ, P.C., Defendants

Decided June 3, 2013

For Kimmel & Silverman PC, Plaintiff: James S. Singer, Zachary J. Tuck, Rudolph Friedmann, LLP, Boston, MA.

For Craig Kimmel, Esq., Plaintiff: James S. Singer, Zachary J. Tuck, Rudolph Friedmann, LLP, Boston, MA.

For Jacqueline Porro, Esq., Matthew Porro, Defendants: Edwin F. Landers, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Jennifer N. Pierce, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Boston, MA.

For David P. Angueira, Esq., Swartz & Swartz PC, Defendants: Terrance J. Hamilton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Andrew T. Imbriglio, Casner & Edwards, LLP, Boston, MA.

Page 47

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SWARTZ DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Judith Gail Dein, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Following an unsuccessful motion to dismiss, defendants David Angueira and the law firm of Swartz & Swartz, P.C. (" S& S" ) have brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 88), substantially re-arguing the same issues that were previously addressed by the District Judge in his Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2012 (" Order" ) denying the motion to dismiss. Because there has been no significant change in the facts or the law, this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned

Page 48

that the motion for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED. The defendants can reargue their positions following the further development of the factual record through discovery.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS [1]

In 2007, Jacqueline and Matthew Porro sued the plaintiffs in this action, Attorney Craig Kimmel and the law firm of Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. (collectively " Kimmel" ). Compl. ¶ 9. In that suit (the " Porro Lawsuit" ), the Porros were represented by the defendants in this action, Attorney David Angueira and the S& S law firm (collectively, the " Swartz defendants" ). Id. ¶ 10. The Porro Lawsuit settled, and the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in May 2009. Id. ¶ 13. The Settlement Agreement provided, inter alia, that " [t]he Parties and their counsel agree not to disclose any information regarding the underlying facts leading up to or the existence or substance of this Agreement . . . ." Id. ¶ 15. Angueira signed his name on the Agreement under a line which read " Approved as to Form." Docket No. 8-2 at 10; Order at 1.

On October 29, 2013, Krista Lohr, who also was represented by Attorney Angueira and the S& S law firm, brought suit against Kimmel & Silverman and Attorney Kimmel in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the " Lohr Lawsuit" ). Compl. ¶ 20. In that action, Ms. Lohr made the same allegations against Kimmel that had been asserted in the Porro Lawsuit. Id. ¶ 21. In connection with the Lohr Lawsuit, the Swartz defendants attached certain documents to a pleading, which Kimmel contends consisted of confidential information that the Swartz defendants had obtained in the Porro Lawsuit. Id. ¶ ¶ 22-24. As a result, Kimmel commenced the instant action in which it alleges that the Swartz defendants [2] breached the Settlement Agreement by attaching those documents to the pleadings in the Lohr Lawsuit. The Complaint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.