Freundlich & Littman LLC v. Feierstein

Decision Date14 December 2021
Docket Number498 EDA 2020
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court
PartiesFREUNDLICH & LITTMAN, LLC AND GREGORY CREED LITTMAN, ESQUIRE, v. EDWARD T. FEIERSTEIN, BRUCE CHASAN, ESQUIRE AND THE LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE J. CHASAN, LLC APPEAL OF: BRUCE CHASAN, ESQUIRE AND THE LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE J. CHASAN, LLC

FREUNDLICH & LITTMAN, LLC AND GREGORY CREED LITTMAN, ESQUIRE,
v.
EDWARD T. FEIERSTEIN, BRUCE CHASAN, ESQUIRE AND THE LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE J. CHASAN, LLC

APPEAL OF: BRUCE CHASAN, ESQUIRE AND THE LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE J. CHASAN, LLC

No. 498 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 14, 2021


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered January 14, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 150401569.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM

MUSMANNO, J.

Bruce Chasan, Esquire, and The Law Offices of Bruce J. Chasan, LLC (collectively, "Chasan"), appeal from the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's November 21, 2019, "Bench Order" in this abuse of process action. We quash the appeal.

Pertinently, Chasan and Gregory Creed Littman, Esquire (together with Freundlich & Littman, LLC, hereinafter "Littman"), were opposing counsel in the underlying negligence action among neighboring condominium owners ("the condo action"). See Complaint, 4/16/15, Exhibit A (Condo Action Complaint). Littman represented the plaintiffs, GJRPA, LP ("GJRPA"), and

1

Chasan represented the defendant, Edward Feierstein ("Feierstein"). Chasan filed a counterclaim on Feierstein's behalf, personally naming the principals of GJRPA and Littman as counterclaim defendants, and seeking attorneys' fees and expenses. Id., Exhibit B (Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim).

Littman subsequently sent Chasan a "Dragonetti Notice" (the "Dragonetti Letter"), [1] stating that the counterclaim was baseless and had been raised improperly. Id., Exhibit C (Dragonetti Letter), at 1-3. Additionally, Littman alleged that Chasan and Freierstein were engaging in witness intimidation, citing the involvement of Littman's brother in Freierstein's criminal trial. Id. at 3. Littman requested that Chasan withdraw his counterclaim within 3 days. Id. at 4. Chasan responded with a letter stating, "The only thing [Freierstein] said that is printable is that he will not withdraw his counterclaim. He's not concerned if his counterclaim is bifurcated. As to

2

the rest of your letter, I am not going to dignify it with any substantive response. Your letter is a thin-skinned rant." Id., Exhibit D (Chasan's Letter). The two attorneys exchanged additional contemptuous letters throughout these proceedings.[2]

On April 16, 2015, Littman initiated the instant abuse of process action by filing a Complaint against Chasan and Feierstein. Littman alleged that Chasan and Feierstein had knowingly pursued a baseless lawsuit, and had "maliciously refused to discontinue" it, which caused Littman "great financial and emotional cost[.]" Complaint, 4/16/15, at 4. Littman sought compensatory and punitive damages. Chasan filed Preliminary Objections, seeking dismissal of Littman's Complaint, based on, inter alia, judicial

3

privilege.[3] Littman filed an Answer, and the trial court ultimately sustained Chasan's Preliminary Objections based on judicial immunity. Littman filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court denied. On direct appeal, this Court concluded that judicial privilege does not apply to Littman's claim. See Freundlich & Littman, 157 A.3d at 535. Accordingly, on February 23, 2017, this Court vacated the trial court Order sustaining Chasan's Preliminary Objections and remanded the matter to the trial court. See id.

Following further extensive litigation not relevant to the instant appeal, the case proceeded to a jury trial in June 2018. On June 8, 2018, in the midst of trial, Chasan's counsel informed the trial court that the parties had reached a Settlement Agreement, which was read into the record as follows:

[Littman] agrees to pay [Chasan] the sum of [sealed]
The payments shall be made in the following payment terms [sealed] will be paid to [Chasan] within 30 days of execution of a mutually acceptable release, and then the remaining [sealed] shall be paid within 90 days thereafter
[Sealed.]

4

The [S]ettlement [A]greement shall include no admission of liability or lack thereof
The parties shall agree that the claims were fully disputed and that the purpose of the party settlement is to avoid the risk and expense and inconvenience of future litigation.
There will be no confidentiality for the [S]ettlement [A]greement.
The [S]ettlement [A]greement shall include a mutual release of all claims or future claims stemming from this lawsuit or the defamation lawsuit filed by [] Chasan, as well as the subject matter that those claims arise from.
And the release shall include the parties, their respective law firms, their employees, attorneys and their respective insurance companies, and those carriers and parties shall be specifically named in the release, and the release shall include all claims known or unknown that now exist or may exist in the future.
The current lawsuit filed by [Littman] shall be voluntarily discontinued with prejudice as against [Chasan].
We ask the [c]ourt to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if there's a dispute between the parties or to resolve any dispute that may arise regarding the finalization of the [S]ettlement [A]greement terms.
The appeal that's currently pending in the defamation lawsuit shall be discontinued with prejudice upon payment of all the settlement funds.
… Littman[] will agree to issue a letter to [] Chasan that states as follows:
Dear Mr. Chasan, on February 5th, 2014, I published a letter copied to a number of individuals which alleged you were involved in witness intimidation in a criminal case in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. It was a misunderstanding, and I apologize.

5

Now, the parties agree that this letter shall remain confidential, and [] Chasan will not disclose this letter to anyone for any reason.
However, if … Littman, or his law firm, disseminates any allegation that [] Chasan was actually engaged in witness intimidation, then that will be considered a material breach of the confidentiality clause and [] Chasan may publish the letter to refute those allegations.
The parties shall also agree to a joint statement that may be disclosed for any purposes that shall read as follows:
The parties fully disputed the claims arising in the matter of Freundlich and Littman, LLC[, ] versus Bruce Chasan and the Law Offices of Bruce J. Chasan, LLC. The parties have agreed to amicably resolve their dispute; and in furtherance thereof, agree to the following:
[Littman] allege[s] that co-defendant []
Feierstein engaged in witness intimidation by filing a counterclaim against … Littman.
Feierstein defaulted and did not contest liability.
There was and is no evidence that [Chasan was] involved in any alleged witness intimidation engaged in by … Feierstein, nor was there any finding by the finder of fact that [Chasan was] engaged in witness intimidation.
The parties shall also, subject to negotiations between Counsel regarding the [S]ettlement [A]greement, [] craft mutually acceptable language concerning the publication of the joint statement.
It is the intentions of both parties that they shall not publish the joint statement on their firms['] respective websites or disseminate the joint statement publicly to any legal newspapers, the internet, things of that nature, but that would be subject to further discussion among Counsel. If we cannot reach an agreement, we would ask that the [c]ourt facilitate resolving the dispute over appropriate language for that provision of the agreement.

6

Finally, Your Honor, there will be some allowance for a non-disparagement clause but only again, subject to further negotiations among Counsel as far as the specific language.
It is the intention of [Chasan] that we do not wish to be subject to a potential breach of any non-disparagement clause by disseminating truthful information.
Again, to the extent that the parties are unable to reach an agreement on those terms, we may ask the [c]ourt to help facilitate resolving any such dispute.
Your Honor, we also ask that for the purposes of this record that the amounts of the settlement are sealed, but it will not be sealed from the [S]ettlement [A]greement. That will not be confidential.

N.T., 6/8/18, at 3-8 (some emphasis added; some emphasis omitted); see also id. at 10 (wherein Littman's counsel indicated that he had nothing to add regarding the terms of the agreement, as read into the record). The docket entry following the June 8, 2018, hearing states that the matter was settled after assignment to the trial judge, and the parties had settled after the jury was sworn and testimony had begun.

On September 24, 2018, Chasan filed a Petition to Enforce Settlement. Therein, Chasan alleged that on July 17, 2018, his counsel "transmitted to opposing counsel a written agreement memorializing the terms of the settlement reached by the Parties[...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT