Natalie Jacobs (Associate-McLean) prevailed on behalf of her client, a national chain restaurant, in an unusually “messy” matter in which local homeowners sued our client, another restaurant and Fairfax County alleging grease from the restaurants caused sewer lines to become congested to such an extent that their basement flooded with sewage. Natalie demurred on behalf of our client arguing that the company did not owe a legal duty to downstream property owners. The court sustained our demurrer, but granted plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming additional restaurants as defendants. Again, we demurred, and again, the court sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint before eventually nonsuiting the restaurant defendants, including our client. The court later sustained the Fairfax County demurrer, which dismissed the case with prejudice. Following the nonsuit, plaintiff refiled the claims in a second suit against some of the previously nonsuited restaurants. Notably, plaintiff failed to include our client in the new suit, and plaintiff’s time to proceed against them had expired.  A hard-fought win for Natalie anything but sub-par.  

Kathryn Grace (Partner-Charlotte, NC), Nicole Melvani (Partner-McLean, VA), and Thomas Tutone (Associate-McLean, VA) obtained dismissal with prejudice of an aviation matter on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a student pilot. The case arose out of an airplane crash that resulted in the death of the certified flight instructor, as well as injuries to the client and a teenage passenger. The certified flight instructor’s estate filed a wrongful death claim against our client, who was participating in his first day of flight instruction through a university aviation program on the day of the accident. The amended complaint alleged that the student pilot was nervous and unprepared, and caused a stall during takeoff. Kathryn and Nicole successfully argued against this. In particular, the amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief because it did not allege that the client breached any duty owed under Federal Aviation Regulations. Importantly, and in support of an argument for dismissal with prejudice, they also argued the certified flight instructor was the pilot in command and bore ultimate responsibility for the operation of the aircraft at the time of the accident, and for ensuring the student was adequately prepared for the training flight. While this was a tragic accident, the certified flight instructor’s estate could not sustain a claim for negligence against her student for failure to state a claim and any amendment would be futile. The Court agreed and dismissed the action against our student pilot client in its entirety, with prejudice.

Haley Mathis (Of Counsel-McLean, VA) and Erin Haney (Associate-Mclean, VA) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice claim in Fairfax County Circuit Court, Virginia, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s attorney-client. The plaintiff in this matter retained our client to represent her in a 2022 divorce action but terminated the representation several weeks before trial. The plaintiff later alleged she was left without counsel during a complex divorce proceeding wherein the Circuit Court divided and distributed the couple’s property in accordance with Virginia law governing equitable distribution. Dissatisfied with the result, the plaintiff sued our client, claiming she would have received a more favorable equitable-distribution outcome had he represented her more effectively prior to her terminating him. The court sustained Haley and Erin’s demurrer, agreeing with their arguments that an alleged violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not give rise to a civil cause of action or a basis for liability, and that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a breach of any purported duty and a proximate cause of damages beyond conclusory allegations.

​Giovanna Bonafede (Associate-McLean, VA) scored a significant win for our housing authority client in a Fair Housing/ADA case. The plaintiff brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against our client and their individual employees alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the American Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff alleged that our client and their employees discriminated against her by denying her housing voucher following an internal appeal process conducted by the housing authority. Plaintiff previously filed a near identical suit against our clients in the same court, which was dismissed without prejudice and which plaintiff appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the court’s dismissal. Giovanna’s motion to dismiss argued (1) that res judicata bars the plaintiff’s claims, (2) the plaintiff’s claims are time-barred, and (3) the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court found that the claims were time-barred by the appropriate statutes of limitations and did not address the remaining arguments. The plaintiff attempted to salvage her claims by arguing that the statutes of limitations were tolled through the time she spent on other lawsuits and the appeal. However, the Court agreed with Giovanna, finding that “If a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled, ‘the tolling effect of the filing of the suit is wiped out and the statute of limitations is deemed to have continued running from whenever the cause of action accrued, without interruption by that filing.’” The Court was not swayed by the plaintiff’s argument that the enforcement of her voucher termination tolls her claims in seeking to invoke the continuing violation doctrine. The Court determined that a “continuing violation is occasioned by continual unlawful actions, not continual ill effects from an original violation.”

Lindsay Powell (Of Counsel-McLean, VA) and Hariton Wilson (Associate-McLean, VA) secured a significant win for our title and settlement company client in a dispute over an alleged undiscovered title defect that caused the plaintiff (re)seller to miss out on a potential subsequent sale. The plaintiff brought an action in the Campbell County Circuit Court against our client alleging claims of negligence and breach of contract, seeking $179,000 in damages plus attorney’s fees. The case was received in default approximately one year ago, necessitating the preparation and filing of expedited responsive pleadings, which were resolved in our client’s favor. Lindsay and Hariton promptly moved for leave to file a motion to produce the contract to the breach of contract count, which was granted. The plaintiff could never produce the document, leading to a subsequent motion to strike the breach of contract count. The initial demurrer argued that the negligence claim was barred under the economic loss doctrine and that the breach of contract claim did not sufficiently allege the elements of the contract. The court sustained the demurrer to negligence with prejudice, finding that the economic loss doctrine applied. The judge sustained the motion to strike the breach of contract claim in part, dismissing it without prejudice, for failure to comply with the court’s order resulting from the motion to produce the document. 

Jason Waters (Partner-McLean, VA) and Lauren Gilman (Associate-McLean, VA) won affirmance in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals from a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to our common carrier client. In his complaint, the plaintiff, a passenger on our client’s bus, alleged that he was injured when the bus operator negligently braked to avoid colliding with a vehicle. However, video evidence from the bus established that the passenger’s body barely moved when the bus braked. In affirming the trial court’s order granting summary judgement, the Court of Appeals agreed that the video evidence was sufficient to find that the plaintiff could not establish he was injured in the accident. The video showed that the minor collision “had almost no effect on him physically” and he did not exhibit any discomfort in the collision’s aftermath. Notably, the Court of Appeals also gave weight to the fact that the plaintiff did not speak with police about his injuries, directing attention to the police report from the incident that indicated nobody at the scene reported any injuries. Together, the court found that evidence demonstrated no genuine dispute of material fact, and the grant of summary judgment was proper. The opinion provides favorable case law moving forward in the District of Columbia for when video evidence directly contradicts a plaintiff’s claim they were injured, even when a plaintiff has subsequent medical records showing that he sought treatment for injuries.  

Thomas (T.J.) Tutone (Associate-Mclean, VA) won affirmance from the Fourth Circuit of a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. The plaintiff alleged that our client violated section 1018 of Title X, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (the Act), causing alleged injuries. The plaintiff alleged she did not receive a “Lead-Based Disclosure” pamphlet despite the fact that the unit was constructed prior to 1978. Appellant went on to allege that Appellee’s “failure to provide lead-based disclosures to the plaintiff during the tenancy period constitutes a violation.” As a result, the plaintiff alleged that she was exposed to “potential lead-based paint hazards … which have resulted in her having adverse health effects.” In response, T.J. filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a knowing violation, which was granted without leave to amend. The plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which T.J. opposed, and was denied. However, given that the plaintiff was pro se, the court granted her leave to file an amended complaint. Despite the Judge’s ruling, the plaintiff chose to proceed with an appeal to the Fourth Circuit. We filed a brief in opposition, which argued that the district court’s decision should be affirmed given the complaint failed to present facts that are sufficient to establish the mens rea requirement of the Act. Specifically, the complaint explicitly alleged that our client acted negligently, not knowingly. The Fourth Circuit agreed, affirmed the lower court’s decision, and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Lori Jarvis (Of Counsel-McLean, VA) and Sung Che Jo (Associate-McLean, VA) successfully defended a homeowners association in the lower court when plaintiff condominium owners sued them for failing to affirmatively disclose sub-floor asbestos at the point of sale in 2013, arguing that the bylaws created such a duty. The plaintiffs sought $80,000 in economic damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. The plaintiffs appealed and Lori argued the appeal. In an unpublished opinion from the Virginia Court of Appeals, the court agreed with our client, the lower court, and Lori and Sung Che’s argument. Appellate Judge Lisa M. Lorish affirmed that the client’s alleged nondisclosure could not constitute fraud or concealment in the present case.

William Katt (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) and Nicole Melvani (Partner-McLean, VA) obtained dismissal of an aviation matter filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, on forum non conveniens grounds. The case arose out of an airplane crash in Connecticut, which resulted in multiple claims of death, personal injury, and property damage. Seven individual lawsuits were filed in Connecticut against multiple parties. The aircraft manufacturer settled one of the Connecticut lawsuits and then filed a complaint seeking contribution, indemnification, and equitable subrogation against our client in Florida, where the aircraft owner had its principal place of business, actively seeking to avoid litigating the matter in Connecticut and contesting the existence of personal jurisdiction in the remaining actions. Bill and Nicole filed a Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that Connecticut was the more appropriate forum. The plaintiff manufacturer opposed the motion, arguing that it had appropriately filed suit in the aircraft owner’s hometown and arguing that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to great deference. The plaintiff manufacturer also argued the Connecticut state court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff given it was contesting personal jurisdiction in the remaining actions pending there, and argued it would be prejudiced if it was forced to re-file in Connecticut because it could be found to have waived its personal jurisdiction defenses in the other matters. After considering all of the requisite factors, the Court agreed with Bill and Nicole and granted the Motion to Dismiss, entering an Order that substantively mirrored the draft Order they prepared and submitted to the Court. The Court dismissed the matter without prejudice to plaintiff to re-file in Connecticut within a limited period of time.

William Katt (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) with the help of Nicole Melvani (Partner-McLean, VA) secured a significant defense victory on behalf of a aircraft component manufacturer following a multi-week jury trial in an aviation matter in Rhode Island Superior Court. Wilson Elser was called to assume lead and trial counsel role after the case had been pending for several years. The plaintiff alleged our client’s bushings, a small part used in aircraft engines, failed to conform to design specifications and that the client falsified material certifications. The plaintiff further alleged the bushings migrated inside aircraft engines during operation, causing engine failure. The FAA issued a safety bulletin, mandating a recall for inspection and replacement of bushings. The plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract and several related claims. The plaintiff sought approximately $7.5 million in damages plus punitive damages and pre-judgment interest at 12 percent, including approximately $2.5 million in compensatory damages associated with the recall and another $5 million in consequential damages associated with settlement payments to third parties, which included a $4.5 million settlement payment to passengers who were severely injured when their sightseeing helicopter crashed in California due to engine failure. Prior to trial, Wilson Elser secured summary judgment in the client’s favor on the indemnification count. The remaining counts were tried to a jury. Although the plaintiffs asked for $7.5 million from the jury, their settlement demands during trial were significantly more because they claimed 12 percent pre-judgment interest running from at least 2017. The jury found in favor of Wilson Elser’s client on all counts except for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose. The jury awarded the plaintiff less than $1.5 million in damages, thereby accepting the defense’s theory that the California accident did not involve a bushing manufactured by Wilson Elser’s client and that the claimed recall damages included unsupported expenses. Because the jury found there was no intentional misrepresentation by the firm’s client, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s punitive damage claim as a matter of law. The verdict was significantly less than the demands made by the plaintiff during trial. Additionally, throughout the litigation and trial, the plaintiff’s primary focus was on the breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation claims, both of which were rejected by the jury. 

​Matthew Lee (Partner-McLean, VA) and Haley Mathis (Associate-McLean, VA) represented a media client located in Washington, D.C. The client wrote articles on the alleged retaliation against two whistleblowers by the Office of Inspector General for the Social Security Administration. The plaintiff, chief counsel for the OIG, sued the firm’s client for defamation, false light, and infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit was ultimately transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned to District Judge Mehta. On behalf of the firm’s client, Haley and Matt moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), specifically arguing that the plaintiff’s defamation claims were not actionable under Pennsylvania’s fair report privilege (the case was originally filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania); and to the extent that the privilege did not apply to a specific statement, that the plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to support an allegation of actual falsehood (the statements touched on matters of public concern); and, lastly, that the amended complaint failed to allege actual or NY Times malice, which is required for an action by a public official – the plaintiff was, as chief counsel for the SSA OIG, clearly such an official. Further, they argued that the plaintiff’s claims for false light and infliction of emotional distress were not actionable for the same reasons that the defamation claims were not actionable. In a March 26, 2025, Order, Judge Mehta granted our client’s motion to dismiss in all respects. The order was accompanied by a 64-page memorandum opinion setting forth in detail the Judge’s reasoning for granting our client’s and the other defendants’ motions to dismiss. The entire case was dismissed, and the defendants are waiting to see if the plaintiff will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Matthew Lee (Partner-McLean, VA) and Taylor Giles (Associate-McLean, VA) prevailed on a demurrer (motion to dismiss) in Arlington County General District Court in a chiropractor malpractice case. Matt and Taylor argued that prior to requestin​g service of process upon the defendant, the plaintiff was required to obtain expert opinions that the firm’s client breached the standard of care, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages. The plaintiff failed to do so, and, at the start of trial, the Court granted the client’s motion to dismiss for failure to obtain the requisite expert opinions.