Starting on May 18, 2025, the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law will include motorcycles for the first time as, “new motor vehicles.”
Specifically, the law to go in effect particularly advises that the term, “new motor vehicle” includes motorcycles but does not include motor homes, off-road vehicles or dual sport motorcycles driven off road.
The definition section of the new law for “dual sport motorcycles” states that a “motorcycle that is designed to be ridden on and off road that may or may not be registered with the department.” Although this definition appears straight forward, under Section 4 titled, Repair Obligations, the law adds a new section, (a)(1) for motorcycles, “[the repair obligation] may occur within a period of one year following the actual delivery of the motorcycle to the purchaser or during the term of the warranty, whichever may occur first[.]”
Moreover, pursuant to the new Section 5 titled, Manufacturer’s Duty for Refund or Replacement, the new law states, “For purposes of this section, the phrase ‘modification or alteration’ shall include, in relation to a motorcycle, a modification or alteration made after the date of actual delivery of the motorcycle to the purchaser.”
The most important and cumbersome additions to the law, besides including motorcycles, occurs at Section 6, Presumption of a Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts, which now includes Section (a)(3), “For a motorcycle, manufacturer‑sourced parts have been used in the attempts to repair the nonconformity.” And Section 6(a)(4), “The minimum number of calendar days provided under Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to the period during which a motorcycle is being stored in a manufacturer’s authorized service and repair facility, either as a courtesy to the purchaser or for compensation, even if repairs to correct a nonconformity are made during the storage period. This paragraph shall apply if the purchaser waives the minimum calendar day period in writing or enters into a contract for storage of the motorcycle. Read More
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of two lawyers to partnership: Alexander M. Owens and Mark T. Sottile in Philadelphia, PA.
“We are pleased to recognize the professional excellence of our newest partners Alexander Owens and Mark Sottile. These lawyers represent the best of the long-range future of our law firm,” said William Pietragallo, Managing Partner of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP.
New partners:
Alexander M. Owens focuses his practice on the False Claims Act, Commercial Litigation, White Collar Litigation, and Class Action matters. He has tried multiple cases to verdict in state and federal courts. Beyond litigation, he counsels clients on regulatory issues arising under federal and state healthcare laws.
Mark T. Sottile focuses his practice on Employment Litigation and Counseling and Commercial Litigation. He has tried multiple cases to verdict in Pennsylvania and New Jersey state and federal courts and obtained summary judgment victories in countless high-stakes employment and commercial litigation matters. He has litigated hundreds of employment and commercial law claims under a number of federal statutes.
About Pietragallo
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More
For divorce lawyers, Valentine’s Day means two things: engagements and prenuptial agreements. While others are throwing away wilted roses and finishing off the last few chocolates from heart shaped boxes, divorce attorneys are fielding calls about prenuptial agreements.
As I discussed in “Getting Married? Four Reasons Why You Need a Prenuptial Agreement,” here are four reasons you need a prenuptial agreement before you exchange your vows:
You want to simplify your divorce (if you ever need one);
You want to protect your business;
You want to protect your home, retirement and other assets; and
You want to protect your children’s inheritance in the event of your death.
While I am not suggesting you ask for a prenuptial agreement on Valentine’s Day, it is never too early to start thinking about whether you need one and what you want to protect. It is no fun to be doing last minute wedding planning and negotiating a prenuptial agreement at the same time. Get it done so you can focus on the fun stuff: the wedding, honeymoon and the marriage!
If you are interested in finding out whether you need a prenuptial agreement, contact us to get started. Read More
Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr., partner and chair of the Family Law Practice Group at Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP and former Pennsylvania Bar Association President, has been appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as Vice-Chair of its Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee.
Ken’s Vice-Chair term on the committee began February 1, 2024.
The Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee advises and assists the Supreme Court on matters related to the practice of family law in Pennsylvania including procedural rules related to divorce, support, custody, paternity, and protection from abuse. The primary goal of the committee is to simplify family law practice by recommending new rules or amendments to existing procedural rules relating to family law matters.
This latest appointment is yet another leadership assignment for Ken in state, local, and national bar association organizations. In addition to serving as the 112th President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association in 2006, he has been elected and appointed to numerous PBA committees, task forces and special projects throughout his distinguished career. Ken also served for 12 years on the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Board of Governors and was Chairperson of its Family Law and Young Lawyer Sections.
In 2009, he was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Castille to the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice; a special panel created by Governor Edward Rendell and the Pennsylvania General Assembly to investigate the causes of one of the most extraordinary cases of judicial corruption in state history.
Ken served as a member of the Board of Trustees at Saint Francis University from 2010 to 2022. He is also a member of the Thomas R. Kline Duquesne University School of Law Dean’s Advisory Board and most recently was appointed to the Neighborhood Legal Services Board of Directors.
In addition, Ken served 13 years as an adjunct professor on the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he taught Advanced Family Law Trial Advocacy. Read More
On June 1, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split over how to judge scienter under the False Claims Act’s “knowingly” element. 2
Writing for a unanimous Court in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., Justice Thomas held that “[t]he FCA’s scienter element refers to [a defendant’s] knowledge and subjective beliefs—not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed.”
SuperValu has already begun to reshape the FCA landscape for the Medicare Advantage sector, which absorbs a staggering $450 billion in annual government payments. Cigna Corp., for example, recently made headlines by settling a trio of FCA claims related to its Medicare Advantage plans for $172 million. As discussed below, the settlement marks a significant turning point in the government’s enforcement efforts against Medicare advantage insurers and providers.
Background on SuperValu
The whistleblowers in SuperValu had accused two retail pharmacies—SuperValu and Safeway—of “knowingly” reporting to Medicare and Medicaid the full retail price of prescription drugs as their “usual and customary” price, despite providing significant discounts to other payors.
The FCA defines “knowingly” to mean acting (1) with actual knowledge of the information; (2) deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. 3 The FCA does not require proof of specific intent to defraud.
Although evidence showed that SuperValu and Safeway had interpreted “usual and customary” to mean discounted prices, the retailers argued that it was “objectively reasonable” to read “usual and customary” to mean full retail prices. The district court agreed and dismissed the FCA suits, holding that the retailers had not acted “knowingly.”
The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that the retailers had made “objectively reasonable” interpretations of ambiguous law. In other words, because the claims were objectively reasonable, the retailers’ own subjective beliefs about what constituted “usual and customary” were irrelevant to scienter. Read More
Matthew R. Barnes and Brennan Hart recently obtained a dismissal in a case that alleged our client, an e-commerce retailer, violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because its website was allegedly inaccessible to the visually impaired. Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted our motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was prohibited from bringing the Title III case against the online business because a website alone is not a “place of public accommodation,” as contemplated under Title III of the ADA.
“This is a faithful application of Third Circuit law and a major win for e-commerce retailers and online retailers in the Third Circuit,” Matt said in a recent interview.
Thousands of website accessibility lawsuits have been filed in recent years and this decision is the first of its kind in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Matt argued the case, and, at oral argument, the Court noted that it was “one of those occasions when oral argument is actually very helpful to the Court.”
The decision lends crucial support to any online company doing business in the Western District of Pennsylvania and beyond.
Read The Legal Intelligencer’s recent article here. Read More
Pietragallo partner Carla Schiff Donnelly was trained in mediation years ago and has participated in more than 100 mediations. Mediation is one of the best tools to resolve a family law matter. She recently took a refresher course for mediators to further hone her skills and learn more techniques to help couples navigate their family law issues.
Here are some of the advantages to mediation that Carla has learned:
Lower Cost
Although she recommends that both parties consult lawyers, mediation is far more economical than having the court resolve your issues. As a litigator, she knows how expensive court time can be. Just a simple status conference can cost hours of attorney time for both parties. You need to prepare for the conference, get there early, often wait because the court is running behind, and then travel back to the office. Even if the lawyers participate in the mediation, you are still saving time and money.
Control the Outcome
If you go to court, a stranger will be deciding where your children will live and how much money you will receive. You may win on issues you care less about and lose on what is most important to you.
Better Outcomes
The court will divide your money and children with the equivalent of a meat cleaver. Mediation gives you the opportunity to divide money and time with your children with the precision of a scalpel. Sometimes what works best for you and your family is not what a court will order.
Confidentiality
Mediation is a confidential process. Court is not confidential. Do you want your dirty laundry aired out at the courthouse?
Compliance
If you enter into an agreement voluntarily, you are more likely to adhere to it than you are with court-imposed resolutions. That means your ex is more likely to comply too. Read More
Divorce attorneys see an uptick in new client calls come January each year. Some bide their time in order to get through the holidays for the sake of the children. For others, the stress of the holidays can cause the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Many, however, see a new year as time to leave behind what makes them unhappy, be it bad habits or an unhappy (or abusive) marriage. That is where the New Year’s Resolution comes in.
As a divorce lawyer for many years, I am often asked if I recommend marriage counseling to my clients. My answer is yes, if it is indicated. Unfortunately, the times I have recommended marriage counseling are few and far between. That is because of all the time and contemplation that goes into making the call to a divorce attorney in the first place. By the time a client comes in to see their lawyer, they have often been unhappy for a long time and their marriage is beyond repair.
Ambivalence and fear prevent people from coming to us sooner. New Year’s Resolutions can be the push they need to make the call. The “funny” thing is, once the client comes in, they often regret not coming in sooner. Their questions are answered and the process is less daunting and mysterious. As we get up from the conference room table it is not unusual to hear “I feel so much better than I did when I got here.”
The Next Chapter
If your resolution is to leave your marriage, contact us to set up a plan to get started. Also, you may find helpful to read about what to expect at an initial consultation.
In the meantime, if you are not familiar with your finances, this may be a good time to look around for tax returns, pay stubs and other documents that may help you get a clearer picture. Read More
Your initial consultation with an attorney is your time, especially if you are paying for it. The goal of an initial consultation is to have the client leave with all of their questions answered and a game plan for moving forward in the short term.
Getting Started
We start by asking some introductory questions so that we can understand what prompted you to seek legal counsel and to determine what issues need to be addressed first. After we gather enough basic facts, we then give you a “lay of the land” in terms where the law fits in with your situation. We then try to come up with a short-term game plan and address your questions.
It is not unusual for clients to have no or little information about their finances. That is okay. You probably know more than you think. We also have various ways that we can gather that information for you over the course of your case.
What to Bring
As far as what to bring, there is no set list. Most of the time, it is okay not to bring anything. The exception would be if you have been served with papers. In that event, it is a good idea to bring those papers with you.
Some clients bring tax returns, pay stubs, bank account statements and other documents that are concerning to them. Certainly, the more documents you bring the more specific feedback your attorney can provide.
Bring anything with you that you want us to look at, and feel free to bring a friend or relative for moral support.
Fee arrangements
At the end of the consultation, we will discuss a fee arrangement should you decide to retain our services.
A question we are asked frequently is why are our consultations not free. There are a few reasons. Read More
Pietragallo partner Scott Coffina recently spoke on AARP’s podcast, The Perfect Scam℠, on the episode “Couple and Homeless Man Conspire on Viral $400K GoFundMe Scam”. On the podcast, Scott shared his unique perspective on the viral story of a New Jersey couple and a homeless veteran, having supervised their prosecution for their $400,000 GoFundMe scam during his time as County Prosecutor for Burlington County, NJ. Mr. Coffina discusses this and other scams he saw during his time as County Prosecutor during the podcast.
The podcast is available below, and can be found on Apple Podcasts, Amazon, and Spotify.
Read More
