Morgan & Morgan Slams False Advertising Suit Over TV Ads
Florida's Morgan & Morgan moved to dismiss a Philadelphia firm's lawsuit, calling it "grossly deficient."
November 29, 2017 at 03:40 PM
19 minute read

Morgan & Morgan is fighting back against a Philadelphia personal injury firm's lawsuit over television commercials.
Orlando, Florida-based Morgan & Morgan filed a motion to dismiss Tuesday, claiming that Rosenbaum & Associates' complaint fails to state a claim. Rosenbaum's claims are “grossly deficient,” the motion said.
“Instead of exercising due diligence prior to filing this complaint, plaintiffs have slung the proverbial mud against the wall, hoping desperately that some of it will stick,” Morgan & Morgan's motion said. “Respectfully, none of it should.”
Rosenbaum sued Morgan & Morgan and its principals in late September in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Morgan & Morgan advertises that it represents clients in Philadelphia and the surrounding area when, according to the complaint, it only has one Pennsylvania attorney, who has “little or no experience in handling personal injury matters.”
Since filing the complaint, Jeff Rosenbaum has created his own commercial slamming Morgan & Morgan, and asked the court to enjoin Morgan & Morgan from running its ads on television while the case is ongoing.
In its motion, Morgan's firm argued that Rosenbaum did not allege sufficient facts to show false advertising under the Lanham Act, or tortiously unfair competition methods. And with regard to the claims against the firm's principals, the motion said, there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint.
According to the motion, Rosenbaum's complaint failed to identify the false advertisements or provide copies, transcripts or screenshots, and did not describe the ads in detail. They only used “alleged excerpts” from the commercials, the motion said.
“Plaintiffs' selective use of threadbare phrases, without citing to a specific advertisement and any accompanying disclaimer, is insufficient to satisfy [Federal Civil Procedure] Rule 8,” the Morgan motion argued.
Rosenbaum has also alleged that Morgan & Morgan's ads caused him to lose business. But Morgan's motion said Rosenbaum could not show that any client who hired Morgan & Morgan would have gone to Rosenbaum & Associates but for the advertisements.
“Plaintiffs would have this court believe that there are only two law firms advertising for personal injury clients in this metropolitan area—Morgan & Morgan and Rosenbaum & Associates—and that any client who elects one firm does so necessarily at the expense of the other,” the motion said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, given the plethora of attorneys and law firms advertising for personal injury clients in the Philadelphia media market.”
Additionally, the motion argued, the conduct described in Rosenbaum's complaint—related to how Morgan & Morgan operates and advertises in Pennsylvania—is regulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board, and does not make for a private cause of action. Gaetan Alfano of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti in Philadelphia is representing Morgan & Morgan.
Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates, who is representing his firm, did not respond to a call seeking comment Wednesday.

Orlando, Florida-based
“Instead of exercising due diligence prior to filing this complaint, plaintiffs have slung the proverbial mud against the wall, hoping desperately that some of it will stick,”
Rosenbaum sued
Since filing the complaint, Jeff Rosenbaum has created his own commercial slamming
In its motion, Morgan's firm argued that Rosenbaum did not allege sufficient facts to show false advertising under the Lanham Act, or tortiously unfair competition methods. And with regard to the claims against the firm's principals, the motion said, there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint.
According to the motion, Rosenbaum's complaint failed to identify the false advertisements or provide copies, transcripts or screenshots, and did not describe the ads in detail. They only used “alleged excerpts” from the commercials, the motion said.
“Plaintiffs' selective use of threadbare phrases, without citing to a specific advertisement and any accompanying disclaimer, is insufficient to satisfy [Federal Civil Procedure] Rule 8,” the Morgan motion argued.
Rosenbaum has also alleged that
“Plaintiffs would have this court believe that there are only two law firms advertising for personal injury clients in this metropolitan area—
Additionally, the motion argued, the conduct described in Rosenbaum's complaint—related to how
Ryan Cohen of Rosenbaum & Associates, who is representing his firm, did not respond to a call seeking comment Wednesday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All


'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute read
Settlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.