Operating Online? Know Whether Your Website is a Place of Public Accommodation Before Reacting to Litigation Threats

2026/04/22

A recurring series exploring shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, membership fights, and business breakups in the Keystone State. Follow the series here. In recent years, businesses of all sizes have faced a surge of demand letters and lawsuits alleging website and digital accessibility violations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). These threats can be financially and reputationally costly, creating immediate pressure to settle quickly or embark on protracted litigation. But a threshold question is often overlooked: Is your website or app, standing alone, considered a “place of public accommodation” in your jurisdiction? This question is critical because, under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff can only sue a business that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. If you do not own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation as understood under Title III, you should not be subject to suit and should have grounds to dismiss the case. Courts across the country are divided on how to define a place of public accommodation. Understanding whether you own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation is thus key to your case. The Circuit Split and Why It Matters Whether a business owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation is straightforward when the challenged activity occurs at a brick-and-mortar store, since a physical store, by definition, is a place of public accommodation. However, courts nationwide are divided on whether websites or digital services alone qualify as places of public accommodation. Some federal circuit courts hold that standalone websites and digital services are places of public accommodation, while others require a nexus, or connection, between the website or digital service and a physical place of business. The consequence of the split is clear: If you conduct business online without a nexus to a physical store accessible to the public, you may, depending on the jurisdiction, have grounds to dismiss the case. Read More

Why Defining “Irreparable Harm” in Your Contracts Matters

2026/04/08

A recurring series exploring shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, membership fights, and business breakups in the Keystone State. Follow the series here. When disputes arise, the fastest, and sometimes only, way to prevent lasting damage is to ask a court for an injunction. But courts do not grant injunctions lightly. A key consideration is whether you’ll suffer “irreparable harm” that money alone cannot fix. The rapid pace of the modern economy makes injunctive relief more important than ever, and sophisticated contracts increasingly define “irreparable harm” to address that need. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently recognized the value of defining irreparable harm in commercial contracts. Doing so may reduce uncertainty, streamline emergency motions, and make the difference between protecting your business before it’s too late. What “Irreparable Harm” Means Irreparable harm involves injuries that cannot be cured by compensation alone. Classic examples include loss of customer goodwill, disclosure of trade secrets, disruption of business relationships, and harm to regulatory standing. The common feature in these scenarios is that money cannot truly make the injured party whole, either because the loss is intangible, difficult to quantify, or ongoing. In these situations, injunctive relief – which either prohibits a party from engaging in wrongful conduct or compels curative conduct – is the solution. To obtain injunctive relief, Courts typically require the moving party to prove, among other things, that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. Without proving irreparable harm, the request for an injunction will likely fail, no matter how wrongful the other party’s conduct may be. So, as a threshold matter, you should proactively address irreparable harm in your commercial contracts before a breach occurs. Examples of Why Contractually Defining Irreparable Harm Matters The importance of defining irreparable harm in your commercial contracts is not theoretical or academic. From a practical perspective: It shapes remedies in real time. Read More

Minority Freeze-Outs in Pennsylvania: What Counts as Oppression, and What Can You Do About It?

2026/03/25

A recurring series exploring shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, membership fights, and business breakups in the Keystone State. Follow the series here. In closely held businesses, the dynamics between owners can change quickly, especially when majority owners take action to marginalize minority owners—a scenario called a “freeze-out.” Pennsylvania law protects minority owners who face this minority oppression. Recognizing the signs of minority oppression and understanding the remedies to address it are critical to protecting your ownership rights and the integrity of your company. What Is a Freeze-Out? A freeze-out, or sometimes called a squeeze-out, is any effort by those controlling the company to freeze or squeeze a minority owner out of meaningful participation in, or economic benefit from, the company. Minority oppression is not always abrupt or obvious. It often unfolds subtly and slowly through a series of steps that, in the aggregate, deprive minority owners of their rights, interests, and voice. What Counts as Oppression? Under Pennsylvania law, minority oppression occurs when the challenged conduct undermines the minority owner’s reasonable expectations. In practical terms, red flags include: Excluding the minority owner from management or information. Restricting a minority owner’s access to board or member meetings, company financials, or other key documents and communications can be oppressive if the restriction prevents the minority owner from monitoring their investment. Cutting off compensation and distributions. In many closely held companies, owners expect a return on their investments through salaries, bonuses, or distributions. Unjustly slashing a minority owner’s pay, or suspending distributions while majority owners continue to benefit, is a common freeze-out tactic. Dilution or forced capital calls. Issuing new equity on favorable terms to other owners, announcing capital calls designed to dilute the minority owner, or changing voting rules to neutralize the minority owner’s vote can be oppressive if used to diminish financial or voting power. Read More

Pennsylvania LLC Disputes: Who Has Standing to Sue?

2026/03/12

A recurring series exploring shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, membership fights, and business breakups in the Keystone State. Follow the series here. As a member of a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company (“LLC”), you may encounter disputes over company management, conflicts with outside vendors, disagreements among members, or concerns about LLC assets. In these situations, understanding who has legal “standing” to bring a lawsuit is critical for protecting your interests and resolving disputes effectively. Standing is the gateway to the courthouse in any Pennsylvania business dispute. It asks: who is the proper party to bring the case? As an LLC member, you’ll specifically have to ask: Should I pursue an action directly, should the LLC pursue an action directly, or should I pursue an action derivatively on behalf of the LLC if the LLC does not act directly? Getting this right is essential to protecting your membership rights and your company’s interests, because getting it wrong can defeat your case before it begins. In the same way that a corporation’s shareholders are legally distinct from the corporation, an LLC’s members are legally distinct from the LLC. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently reiterated this distinction by dismissing a case filed by an LLC’s sole member to recover for harm suffered by the LLC itself. In Woytovich v. Jesse Storm Team LLC, 2025 WL 2631587 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 12, 2025), the LLC’s sole member, Jennifer Woytovich, brought claims against a defendant she alleged caused financial harm to the LLC. But the trial court dismissed her case for lack of standing, concluding that the claims belonged to the LLC itself, not Ms. Woytovich. The claims had to be brought either by the LLC directly or by its member derivatively. On appeal, the Superior Court agreed, holding that Ms. Woytovich lacked standing, and her failure to pursue the case derivatively justified the case’s dismissal. Read More

Pietragallo recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®

2025/11/06

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving National rankings in Tier 2 and 3, as well as Regional rankings in Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Under the Regional Tier 1 ranking, Pietragallo was recognized for 18 practice areas in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, including: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Corporate Compliance Law (PHL) Criminal Defense: White-Collar (PGH & PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Employment Law – Management (PHL) Family Law (PGH) Health Care Law (PHL) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation- Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Labor and Employment (PHL) Litigation – Trusts and Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Trusts and Estates (PGH) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (PGH) Pietragallo received six Tier 2 and Tier 3 Regional rankings: Tier 2 Regional in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for the  practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Construction Law, and Litigation – Real Estate. Tier 3 Regional in Pittsburgh for the practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Corporate Law, and Litigation – Construction. Pietragallo has been named as a Tier 2 National firm for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Labor & Employment and a Tier 3 National firm for our work in Health Care Law. Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing: expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Lawyers also voted on expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, whether they would refer a matter to a firm, and if they consider a firm a worthy competitor. Read More

Pietragallo Strengthens Leadership Team with Two New Partners

2025/10/15

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of two lawyers to partnership: Matthew R. Barnes and Robert D. Weinberg. “We are pleased to recognize the outstanding professionalism and legal abilities of our newest partners, Matthew Barnes and Robert Weinberg. They are and will be a part of our bright future,” said William Pietragallo, Managing Partner of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP. Both partners are members in the firm’s Pittsburgh office. Matthew R. Barnes focuses his practice on Commercial Litigation, with deep expertise in Class Actions. He has tried multiple cases to verdict as lead trial counsel and has obtained notable dismissals of his clients from state and federal court cases.  He became the first attorney to successfully argue in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that online-only businesses cannot be sued for website accessibility under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in federal courts located within the Third Circuit. Robert D. Weinberg focuses his practice on Family Law and Estate & Trust Litigation; Estate Planning and Administration. He has worked on complex cases, including multi-day hearings and trials dealing with the valuation of businesses, complicated asset distribution, tax matters, and protracted discovery disputes. A devoted advocate for children, Mr. Weinberg regularly handles custody matters both within and outside Pennsylvania, always centering the best interests of minors. He describes his approach as “aggressively reasonable”—favoring resolutions that balance pragmatism with principled advocacy, while retaining the willingness to litigate when necessary.   About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with five offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

Pietragallo recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®

2024/11/07

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving sixteen Tier 1 Metro rankings in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. These sixteen rankings include: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Criminal Defense – White Collar (PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Employment Law – Management (PHL) Health Care Law (PHL) Family Law (PGH) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation – Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Labor & Employment (PGH & PHL) Litigation – Real Estate (PGH) Litigation – Trusts & Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Trusts and Estates (PGH) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (PGH) In addition to the Tier 1 Metro rankings, Pietragallo also received ten Tier 2 and Tier 3 Metro rankings: Tier 2 Metro firm in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in the respective practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Corporate Compliance Law, Construction Law, Criminal Defense: White Collar, Employment Law – Management, and Litigation – Intellectual Property. Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh in the practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Corporate Law, and Litigation – Construction. Pietragallo has also been named as a Tier 2 National firm in Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Labor & Employment and a Tier 3 National firm for our work in Health Care Law. Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing: expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Read More

Pietragallo Elevates Two New Partners for 2024

2024/10/16

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

Pietragallo Expands to New Jersey

2024/09/10

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is delighted to announce the opening of our newest office in Marlton, New Jersey. Pietragallo currently has ten attorneys barred in New Jersey to serve our clients throughout the Garden State, with additional attorneys in the process of becoming members of the State bar. Their practices cover several specialties including government enforcement and white collar litigation, qui tam and False Claims Act litigation, internal investigations, employment, health care, commercial litigation, professional liability, and Title IX and sexual misconduct. Our New Jersey office will be led by Scott A. Coffina, former Burlington County Prosecutor from 2017-2022, and former Senior Deputy Chief Counsel to Governor Chris Christie. Scott is the co-chair of our Government Enforcement, Compliance, & White Collar Litigation practice group. Scott also has served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Philadelphia and served as Associate Counsel to the President under President George W. Bush. “We are very excited to expand into New Jersey with our new Marlton office,” said Pietragallo founding partner and Chairman, William Pietragallo, II. “Our firm already serves a number of clients in New Jersey,” he added. “Although our Philadelphia office is nearby, New Jersey is a different legal market and court system, and we are confident that we and our clients will benefit from our physical presence in the Garden State.” The Marlton office is located at 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 110, Marlton, NJ 08053.  The office’s main number is 856-817-2600. Scott can be reached at 856-817-2601 or by email at SAC@Pietragallo.com.   About Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP Pietragallo is a multi-disciplined litigation and business law firm headquartered in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and now New Jersey. Read More

22 Pietragallo Lawyers named in 2024 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

2024/05/17

Pietragallo is pleased to announce that 22 lawyers have been named to the 2024 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list. Super Lawyers is a service of Thomson Reuters legal division which compiles a list of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas. Each year, Super Lawyers select attorneys based on peer nominations and evaluations combined with their own independent research. Selections are made on an annual, state by state basis to develop an extensive list of remarkable attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and individuals seeking legal assistance. Only five percent of lawyers are selected to Super Lawyers and two and a half percent to Rising Stars. The following were recognized in the 2024 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list: Gaetan J. Alfano (Top 100 in Philadelphia) Charles Avalli Joseph J. Bosick Kerri Lee Cappella (Top 100 in Pennsylvania, Top 50 Women in Pennsylvania and Top 50 in Pittsburgh) Mark Gordon Brennan Hart Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr. Christopher A. Iacono Michael A. Morse William Pietragallo, II Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Marc S. Raspanti (Top 100 in Philadelphia) Douglas K. Rosenblum Clem C. Trischler Paul Kenneth Vey Robert D. Weinberg The following were recognized in the 2024 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list: Ashley Kenny Alexander Owens Peter St. Tienne Wolff To read more, click here.   About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm headquartered in Pittsburgh with five offices throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More