As Ad Vendor Alleges Big Debts, Foreclosure Firm Calls Filing Frivolous
Mansfield Advertising, which is suing Udren Law Offices, has asked for a judge to appoint a receiver for the law firm.
August 29, 2018 at 03:49 PM
3 minute read
A new filing in an advertising company's case against a foreclosure law firm suggests that the firm's advertising fee debts are not the greatest of its worries as it prepares to close.
Mansfield Advertising, which is suing New Jersey foreclosure firm Udren Law Offices, has asked a judge to appoint a receiver for the law firm. Mansfield has alleged that Udren cannot transition its clients and close down its firm without supervision.
Udren Law Offices, however, has said this latest motion is frivolous.
The advertising company, also known as William J. Mansfield Inc., has alleged in its complaint that Udren Law failed to pay more than $139,000 in fees for foreclosure notices published since January of this year. Udren Law represents lenders and mortgage servicers on real estate matters in Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, according to its website.
In a statement Wednesday, the law firm said, it has “legitimate defenses and potential counterclaims” to the lawsuit, and “intends to vigorously defend the frivolous motion to appoint a receiver that was filed today.”
“Udren Law Offices P.C. values its relationships with all of its clients and vendors. William J. Mansfield Inc. is the lone vendor in the firm's 25-year history to file a lawsuit seeking payment of outstanding invoices,” the firm's statement said. “Each of the firm's other vendors are working with us during this transition.”
According to the emergency motion, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mark Mansfield visited Udren Law's headquarters in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, earlier this month “to follow up on several unreturned phone calls,” and spoke with employee Lorraine Geist.
“Geist said that Udren Law's obligation to Mansfield Advertising is not the firm's largest payable,” the filing said. She also solicited a settlement proposal, it said, but Udren Law has not responded to more recent attempts to discuss a resolution.
The filing also suggested that Udren Law's employee compensation “may be excessive” under the circumstances of the wind-down.
“Although Mansfield Advertising's right to payment is indisputable, Mansfield Advertising may be prevented from obtaining a complete recovery by wasteful spending of Udren Law's limited resources, for example, by maintaining excessive staff levels for the wind-down, or by exercising improper preference in paying its debts,” the motion said.
Mansfield, which is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania, attached the 86 unpaid invoices, all dated between Jan. 26 and Aug. 20 of this year, to its complaint. The plaintiff lists fees for ads in a number of publications around Pennsylvania, including several in The Legal Intelligencer. Mansfield is alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
READ MORE:
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
© 2024 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 AllPhila. Personal Injury Mainstay Regroups After Founder's Untimely Death
5 minute readLegal Tech Driving Rise in Business Executive Roles at Law Firms
'Natural' Haircare Products False Advertising Class Action Can Partially Continue, Pa. Federal Judge Rules
5 minute readBradley Arant Defends Coachcomm In Advertising Beef Over Headset
Trending Stories
- 12nd Circuit Revives Connecticut Lawyers' Challenge to Anti-Discrimination Ethics Rule
- 2Decision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified from Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
- 3Federal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
- 4Florida Court Rules in Favor of Production Co. in Dispute Over Viral Documentary 'Died Suddenly'
- 5What We Learned From In-House Lawyers in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250