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

Anthony Sarafino “Fino” Caliguire to Present Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s CLE

2026/02/19

On Thursday, February 19, 2026, Anthony Sarafino “Fino” Caliguire will co-present the virtual program “Civil Practice in Allegheny County 2026” for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. Designed for newly admitted attorneys and those new to civil litigation, this program offers practical, firsthand insight into the real-world mechanics of civil practice, from what to file, when to file it, and to how to avoid common missteps. With extensive experience in civil litigation, Fino will offer fresh perspectives to help attendees navigate their practice with ease. Find out more information and register here. Read More

Pietragallo Adds Two New Associates to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Offices

2026/02/02

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the addition of two new associates to the firm’s Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Offices, Hannah M. Franke and Michael T. Sweeney. These talented attorneys bring valuable experience and insight that build upon our firm’s strengths and contribute to our continued growth. Meet the two new associates here: Hannah M. Franke has joined Pietragallo as an associate in our Employment & Labor Practice Group in the firm’s Philadelphia Office. Hannah’s practice concentrates on advising and representing employers in a broad range of labor and employment matters, including defending against employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and their state-law counterparts. She previously practiced at a regional law firm and served as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office. She also clerked for the Honorable Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina (Ret.), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. She earned her J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law and her B.A., cum laude, from Rutgers University. Michael T. Sweeney has joined Pietragallo as an associate in our Commercial Litigation and Estate & Trust Litigation; Estate Planning and Administration Practice Groups in the firm’s Pittsburgh Office. Mike’s practice concentrates on commercial litigation, including business disputes, professional liability matters, and complex contractual claims. He previously practiced at a national law firm where he focused on civil litigation with an emphasis on medical malpractice defense. He earned his J.D., cum laude, from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University and his B.A. from State University of New York (SUNY).   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, New Jersey, and West Virginia from which we serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP Builds Premier Estate and Business Succession Group

2026/02/01

PITTSBURGH, PA, –  Responsive to what has been described as “the largest wealth transfer in human history,” Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP (Pietragallo) announces the continued expansion of its Estate and Business Succession Group, assembling one of the most experienced and capable teams in the region to advise clients on sophisticated succession planning, estate and trust administration, and complex litigation. Effective Sunday, February 1, 2026, Pietragallo expands the group with seven new lawyers through a strategic merger with Citron Alex, P.C. (Howard M. Alex, partner, Michael S. Robinson, partner, Daniel A. Seibel, partner, Kay L. Stonemetz, special counsel, and Timothy B. Thurman, partner) and the addition of Nicole Phatak, partner, and Julie Patter Rapaport, partner. The growth builds on the firm’s prior expansion following its merger with Gentile, Horoho & Avalli, P.C. in 2023, further strengthening Pietragallo’s position as a market leader in estate and business succession matters. The expanded group brings together 12 premier lawyers with experience representing individuals, families, fiduciaries, nonprofits and closely held businesses in matters involving multi-generational wealth transfer, business succession, fiduciary governance, tax and high-stakes disputes. The strategic growth reflects Pietragallo’s commitment to meeting the evolving legal needs created by the historic wealth transition now underway across the United States. “Clients today are confronting complex questions around succession, governance, and preservation of wealth,” said Managing Partner William Pietragallo, II. “We have strategically assembled a group of lawyers with the depth, judgment, and litigation strength required to guide families and business owners through these issues — whether in planning, administration, or dispute resolution.” Our Estate and Business Succession Group includes: William Pietragallo, II Charles J. Avalli, co-chair Peter St. Tienne Wolff, co-chair Howard M. Alex Michael S. Robinson Daniel A. Seibel Kay L. Stonemetz Timothy B. Thurman Nicole Phatak Julie Patter Rapaport Adam J. Garret Cameron Gallentine Together, the group offers integrated counsel across the full lifecycle of estate and business succession matters, including advanced planning strategies, administration of complex estates and trusts, representation of fiduciaries, and resolution of high stakes issues through negotiation, arbitration, and trial. 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 Expands with Four New Associates

2025/10/20

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the addition of four new associates to the firm’s Pittsburgh Office. The group of four new associates includes: Cameron T. Gallentine joins our Estate & Trust Litigation; Estate Planning and Administration Practice Group. He previously served as a law clerk at Pietragallo, gaining experience in litigation and transactional matters focused on estate & trust litigation, and was also a law clerk with Lawyers for Nonprofits. He earned his J.D. from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University and his B.A. from The Ohio State University. Madison G. Lawrie joins our Commercial Litigation Practice Group. She previously served as a law clerk at Pietragallo, gaining experience in commercial litigation, assisting with matters from case development through resolution and supporting clients in navigating complex business disputes. She earned her J.D. from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University and her B.A. from PennWest Edinboro. Eleanor M. Miller joins our Family Law Practice Group. She previously served as a law clerk at Pietragallo, assisting clients in a wide range of family law matters and disputes. She was also a law clerk for Judge Ranjan of the U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania. She earned her J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and her B.S. from Juniata College. Brooklyn A. Thomas joins our Product Liability Practice Group. She previously served as a law clerk at Pietragallo, gaining experience in complex product liability matters. She was also a legal extern with the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General in the Conviction Integrity Unit. She earned her J.D. from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University and her B.S. from The Pennsylvania State University.   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, New Jersey, and West Virginia from which we serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 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