Skip to content

Clark Hill Solves Philadelphia Commercial Lot Dispute

August 16, 2024

Stephen Wolf and Andrew Carroll recently won a partnership dispute involving a large commercial lot adjacent to Interstate 95 in Philadelphia.

After several years without a resolution, the plaintiffs brought in Wolf and Carroll to take the case to trial as quickly as possible.

On Aug. 12, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas issued a judgment granting the plaintiffs’ ejectment claim to secure exclusive possession of the property, awarded monetary damages, and granted the plaintiffs’ claim to pierce the corporate veil of the corporate defendants.

“We got this as a problem case that prior lawyers were unable to solve,” Carroll said. “We jumped in and prioritized the ejectment claim to get this to trial quickly.”

The plaintiffs entered into a partnership with the defendants for the lease of the commercial lot, but issues began to arise in December 2016 when the defendants failed to pay nearly $20,000 to the plaintiffs as required by the agreement. This event, in combination with other factors, led to the plaintiffs terminating their agreement for the commercial lot with the defendants in February 2017.

However, the defendants continued to use and rent out spaces in the lot to park tractor-trailers but failed to pay the plaintiffs rent. With litigation ongoing, and a nearby bridge collapse on I-95, a significant tire fire on the lot resulted in Wolf and Carroll obtaining an injunction on behalf of plaintiffs to mitigate safety concerns at the property.

“The top priority was possession of the property so our clients can actually use it to generate income whereas before they were completely shut out of the property by this holdover tenant and bad partner who wasn’t paying a dime for seven years,” Wolf said.

Altogether, the court granted several counts to the plaintiffs, including declaratory judgment, ejectment, breach of contract, and piercing the corporate veil, and it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant with respect to the defendants’ six counterclaims.

“The client has gone through a lot during this time, and this was a problem weighing over them and their family for nearly a decade,” Wolf said. “It’s great to help them get rid of this problem and lift that weight off their shoulders.”

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

California Announces Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with GM Over Connected Vehicle Data

On May 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with several California district attorneys and the California Privacy Protection Agency, announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors and its connected vehicle service OnStar. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law by collecting and selling connected vehicle data without adequate consumer notice or consent.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Long Saga of Colorado AI Act Appears to Have Come to Close With Revised Law

Ever since its initial passage into law in 2024, the Colorado AI Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and calls for change. Over the ensuing two years, multiple attempts to amend the law were floated and proposed by consumer and industry groups. The implementation of the law itself was delayed several times to allow for such changes, with Governor Jared Polis calling a special session of the legislature last August to specifically address potential changes. All of those attempts appear to have culminated in Senate Bill 189 having passed both the Colorado House (57-6) and Senate (34-1) this week. The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis where it is expected to be signed into law and to take effect as of January of 2027.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Using “Schedule A” Litigation to Combat Online Trademark Infringement

In today’s digital world, trademark infringement is a significant concern for businesses aiming to protect their brand identity. Accordingly, it is important for businesses to implement a multifaceted online enforcement strategy to protect their intellectual property rights. Among the various legal avenues available to combat counterfeit goods and unauthorized use of trademarks, “Schedule A” lawsuits, which are most often filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have emerged as a powerful tool. As intellectual property attorneys at Clark Hill, we regularly help businesses secure and enforce their IP rights. Here, we will explore what Schedule A trademark infringement litigation entails, how it works, and why it’s essential for companies to understand this avenue for enforcing their legal rights.

Explore more