The closure of the Studebaker-Packard Corporation car manufacturing plant in 1963 was a major catalyst leading into the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Savings Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), which became effective on September 4, 1974. This pension plan had promised generous benefits for the participants, but the plan was severely underfunded and was not able to cover the benefits for many of the employees vested in the plan. The failure of the Studebaker pension plan, along with a high profile conviction of infamous Teamsters boss James Hoffa on pension fraud, drew the attention to pension plan corruption and mismanagement and spurred talk of reform and regulation in Washington, DC. Ryles, Eric (December 3, 2018). “The History of the Employee Retirement Income Savings Act (ERISA)”. Judy Diamond Associates, Inc. Retrieved May 3, 2022.
Just over a decade later, ERISA was codified in the United States Code.[1] Being in the year of its 50th anniversary date, it is appropriate to update this article that author Robert D’Anniballe previously authored.[2] This article, like the original article, is not intended to suggest that ERISA has been a complete failure. Like other laws, ERISA has limitations and lacks flexibility in achieving its intended goals. The decline of the number of American workers covered by defined benefit plans illustrates how this legislation that was intended to protect participants of defined benefit plans has instead reduced the continued availability and utilization of those plans in the industrial and manufacturing sector. Specifically, airline, steel, and trade & craft workers, among others, have faced significant challenges in the funding and perpetuation of benefits provided by these plans.
Defined benefit plans have become associated with being expensive and inflexible. The funding requirements on an annual basis are not predictable due to volatility experienced in market returns and changes in employee censuses of the plan sponsor. Read More
Pietragallo is pleased to announce that Lourdes Sánchez Ridge has been appointed Chair of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Professional Ethics Committee. Ms. Sánchez Ridge will serve a one-year term as Chair of the committee, which renders opinions on the proper interpretation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or Rules of Professional Conduct and their applicability to particular facts as requested by practitioners. She also serves on the Pennsylvania Bar Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, a similar committee within the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
Professional ethics prove important to Ms. Sánchez Ridge, having stated in an interview that one of her proudest accomplishments in her previous role as Chief Legal Counsel/City Solicitor for the City of Pittsburgh was the creation of the City of Pittsburgh’s Ethics Hearing Board. This Board was formed to regulate compliance with the city’s code of ethics.
Learn more about Ms. Sánchez Ridge and her commitment to the community here. Read More
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving fourteen Tier 1 Metro rankings in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. These fourteen rankings include:
Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL)
Employment Law – Individuals (PHL)
Health Care Law (PHL)
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)
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, Philadelphia, and West Palm Beach in the respective practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Criminal Defense: General Practice, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Employment Law – Management, and Litigation – Intellectual Property.
Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh and West Palm Beach in the respective practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Construction Law, Litigation – Construction, and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
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.
Prior to merging with Pietragallo, Gentile Horoho & Avalli P.C. (GHA) was slated to be ranked as a Tier 1 Metro firm in Pittsburgh for their work in Family Law and a Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh for their work in Litigation – Trusts & Estates, and Trusts & Estates Law. All seven GHA attorneys, well-known for their experience in complex and high net-worth divorce and custody disputes as well as intricate estate/trust cases, have joined Pietragallo.
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. Read More
Business and Commercial Litigation Firm Adds Family Law and Estate Administration/Orphans’ Court Practice
AUGUST 1, 2023 – Two established Pittsburgh law firms have agreed to merge, bringing a highly-experienced family law and estate planning, administration, and litigation practice to a nationally-recognized business and litigation firm.
Effective August 1, 2023, Gentile, Horoho & Avalli, P.C (GHA) will merge with Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP (Pietragallo). All seven GHA attorneys, well-known for their experience in complex and high net-worth divorce and custody disputes as well as intricate estate/trust cases will now join Pietragallo, a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm, with offices in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Sharon, PA, Steubenville, OH, Weirton, WV, and Palm Beach Gardens, FL.
The merger comes on the heels of Pietragallo’s expansion into Palm Beach Gardens in 2022. Pietragallo’s clients range from Fortune 200 and large privately-held companies to municipal entities and entrepreneurial businesses in a broad diversity of industries and business sectors.
Gentile, Horoho & Avalli brings to Pietragallo more than 30 years of experience in providing exceptional legal counsel in the areas of family law and estates and trusts as well as complex orphans’ court litigation.
“We are excited to engage with these outstanding practitioners in a new sphere of domestic-business litigation,” said Pietragallo chairman William Pietragallo II. “Our practices share a common commitment to achieving results.”
“The lawyers at Pietragallo have distinguished themselves as leaders in our profession and in the communities they serve,” said Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr. “The blending of our two firms will provide our current clients with experienced business litigation attorneys who are known for problem-solving and results.”
The family law/estate litigation attorneys joining Pietragallo include:
Kenneth Horoho, Jr., Partner
Charles Avalli, Partner
Kerri Lee Cappella, Partner
Carla Schiff Donnelly, Partner
Lorraine W. Mervan, Special Counsel
Robert D. Weinberg, Associate
Adam J. Read More
Pietragallo partner Phillip R. Earnest has been elected into membership of the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County. Mr. Earnest, chair of the firm’s Construction Practice Group, joins an esteemed group of Pietragallo lawyers who, in part, make up the 250 members of the Academy.
The Academy of Trial Lawyers began in 1959 as an organization to promote the highest standards of integrity, civility, and competence in the legal profession. The Academy fosters development, improvement and accomplishment of the highest quality of advocacy before our Courts. Members of the Academy have long represented the most exceptional trial lawyers in Allegheny County. Each year, the Academy completes a rigorous membership process where new members are selected, this year Mr. Earnest is among twelve members who have been selected by the membership committee.
Mr. Earnest primarily represents corporations in commercial, construction, and insurance contract drafting, negotiation, claims, and litigation. He has tried numerous jury trials and has successfully conducted commercial and construction arbitrations throughout the federal and state court systems of Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Learn more about the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County here. Read More
Pietragallo partner Joseph J. Bosick was the recipient of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law’s Distinguished Alumni Award for 2023. This honor recognizes Alumni who have given exceptional service to the Law School and to the legal community at large, recognizing their extraordinary commitment and accomplishments.
As an accomplished trial attorney, Mr. Bosick has been rated an AV Preeminent® attorney by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®, the highest such rating available to any individual lawyer in both legal ability and ethical standards. He has also been named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in the area of Civil Litigation. He has received professional recognition in Lawyers of Distinction, America’s Most Honored Professionals, Who’s Who in American Law, International Who’s Who of Professionals and The Global Directory of Who’s Who.
A 1973 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Mr. Bosick is the former president and current member of the Alumni Association. He is also on the Alumni Leadership Council of the University of Pittsburgh. Read More
Every business or nonprofit open to the public, regardless of size, must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The ADA permits a plaintiff to sue a business for failing to provide full and equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA’s aim is laudable; however, plaintiff attorneys have begun exploiting its breadth. Plaintiff attorneys are bringing claims against businesses of all sizes on behalf of plaintiffs who may never actually intend to use the defendant’s goods, services, or facilities. These lawsuits may include allegations that a website is inaccessible to the visually impaired or that hotel beds are too high for the mobility impaired.
A single law firm may file dozens of nearly identical cases, using the same plaintiff, against similarly situated businesses in a short period of time. This type of ADA litigation has become an epidemic in certain parts of the country, including in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Every business is threatened by it.
The proliferation of these cases has raised basic but consequential questions of “standing,” the capacity of a particular party to bring suit. Courts, counsel, and businesses alike are asking – are a plaintiff’s “informational injuries” enough to expose businesses to suit under the ADA? May plaintiffs sue because they learn of a potential ADA violation – such as by visiting a website or calling a hotel’s front desk – or must they personally suffer a concrete injury arising from the noncompliance? The U.S. Supreme Court is stepping in to answer.
During the 2023-2024 term, the Court will hear the case of Acheson Hotels v. Laufer. The plaintiff, Deborah Laufer, sued Acheson Hotels LLC for failing to sufficiently provide information on its website about accessible hotel rooms, despite no indication that Ms. Laufer intended to patronize the hotel. Ms. Read More
By The Legal Intelligencer’s The Young Lawyer Editorial Board
Let’s set the record straight. There are no “usual stipulations” that apply to depositions.
Although some attorneys may share a vague understanding about the usual stipulations, the phrase has no established meaning. In fact, there is no rule, case, or statute that defines the usual stipulations. “Everyone purports to know without asking the content of the ‘usual stipulations’ until a dispute arises; the ephemeral nature of the parties’ understanding is then quite apparent.” See United States v. Liquid Sugars, 158 F.R.D. 466, 473 n.8 (E.D. Cal. 1994).
Because the phrase has no accepted meaning, an attorney should respond to a proposal for the usual stipulations by asking, “What do you mean by the usual stipulations?” The question might elicit shock, anger, or some patronizing retort like, “I’m surprised you don’t know what the usual stipulations are.”
You may feel tempted to agree to the usual stipulations without any clarification. This is especially true for newer lawyers, who fear that asking for an explanation will reveal their inexperience. But there is no reason to be embarrassed. In all likelihood, the attorney proposing the usual stipulations has no idea what the phrase means.
Many attorneys simply mimic what they perceive to be a common practice without questioning whether the practice makes sense. These same attorneys might argue, “I’ve done hundreds of depositions, and no one has ever refused the usual stipulations.” That may be true, but a prevalent practice can still be a flawed practice.
Consider these two common versions of the usual stipulations: “reserving all objections until trial or there is an attempt to use the deposition” or “reserving all objections except to the form of a question.” While neither helps the taking attorney, both give the defending attorney a strategic advantage beyond what the rules provide. Read More
Pietragallo partner Rich Parks will be participating in the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s seminar “PA Business Law Quirks: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt Your Client” co-sponsored by the PBA Business Law Section and PBA Large Law Firm Committee, of which Kevin serves as the chair. This seminar will be held virtually on February 22, 2023. Kevin will be moderating the event while Rich will be speaking on the PA Deficiency Judgment Act.
Business law is an integral aspect of any legal system as it governs and regulates the business environment, this program offers an overview of key concepts necessary to establish a strong foundation in this practice area.
During the program speakers will be presenting on:
Forming business entities under PA law (Corporations, LLCs and LP)
Anti-takeover law
Consent to Jurisdiction by registration, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern
Enterprise liability in PA – piercing the corporate veil
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law: Who is protected, What does it protect against? Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc.
PA Deficiency Judgment Act
Further information can be found here: https://www.pbi.org/Meetings/Meeting.aspx?ID=44457 Read More
Pretrial practice and discovery are critical stages of the litigation process, as they allow parties to gather and exchange information relevant to the case before it goes to trial. In recent years, the issue of e-discovery has become increasingly prevalent in pretrial practice, as more information is stored electronically. This has led to significant changes in how parties manage discovery, as well as how courts interpret and apply the rules governing e-discovery.
A case that highlights these challenges is Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 1:2011cv01279 (S.D.N.Y 2012). In this case, the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, brought an employment-discrimination-and-retaliation lawsuit against her former employer. During the discovery process, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s request for electronic documents was overly broad and unduly burdensome. The court ultimately agreed and ordered the defendant to produce only a limited set of electronic documents.
The Da Silva Moore case illustrates the importance of proportionality in e-discovery. The court recognized that, while the defendant had a duty to preserve and produce relevant electronic documents, the plaintiff’s request was so broad and burdensome that it outweighed the potential benefits of producing all the requested documents. This decision demonstrates that, to avoid disputes over e-discovery, parties must be mindful of proportionality when making requests for electronic documents.
The Da Silva Moore court also addressed the issue of cost shifting. The court ordered the defendant to bear the cost of producing the electronic documents, but also noted that the plaintiff may be required to reimburse the defendant for certain costs if the plaintiff ultimately loses the case. This highlights the importance of considering not only the breadth of the discovery sought but the potential the costs of that discovery, for both for the requesting party and the producing party.
To mitigate the challenges of e-discovery, it is essential for attorneys and their clients to be proactive in identifying and preserving electronic documents that may be relevant to the case. Read More
August 15, 2024
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 27 lawyers have been named as 2025 The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch.Read More
July 1, 2024
Partner Douglas K. Rosenblum of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been appointed as a Hearing Committee Member serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania effective July 1, 2024. Read More
