Pineau, et al. v. Geppi, Four day Jury trial before the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Souder, J.) Case No.: 03-C-16-002086, held August 22-25, 2017. Steve was counsel for Plaintiff Richard Pineau in a breach of contract case, arising from a $13 million plus business venture with Stephen Geppi, who was represented by DLA Piper LLP. Mr. Geppi filed a counterclaim against Mr. Pineau. After a 4 day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Steve’s client for damages in excess of $1.3 million. Mr. Geppi appealed the judgment and the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, remanded the case for further proceedings. A second trial was conducted in December 2020 and judgment was entered for Steve’s client for over $1.5 million. Mr. Geppi appealed the judgment a second time and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment on July 20, 2021.
Nardone, et al. v. DeAngelis, et al. Steve represented Plaintiff-Caveators/Family members in Will contest transmitted to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Hanley, J.) Case No.: C-03-CV-19-002295, upon issues from the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore County. Family members of reclusive uncle, with a history of hallucinations and paranoid thinking, sought to set aside a Will procured by Defendant accountant so as to benefit himself and his sister with $1 million bequest to the detriment of uncle’s intended legatee, namely, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. After a four day trial in September 2020, the Court’s Certified Findings of Fact held that the Will favoring accountant was the product of undue influence and uncle’s late-onset schizophrenia. The successful outcome resulted in the probate of uncle’s prior Will that left nearly the entire $1.7 million estate to St. Jude’s.
Balsamo v. Zorzit, et al. judgment entered on May 19, 2017, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Finifter, J.), Case no. 03-C-12-007741. Steve was lead counsel for Plaintiff in dispute between members of LLC, involving Plaintiff’s direct and derivative claims. The Honorable Michael J. Finifter presided over a 15-day bench trial and issued his decision, finding in part for the Plaintiff and in part for Defendants. On April 1, 2016, after adopting the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Benjamin Rosenberg, that Plaintiff’s derivative action resulted in the recovery or preservation of company assets in excess of $14 million, the Court awarded the Plaintiff a total of over $816,000 as an attorneys’ fees and litigation expense award.
Pransky v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., Case No. 188363, Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Beard, J.) Steve was lead counsel in a two week jury trial of malignant asbestos disease claim for a 34 year-old mother and wife. Following Mr. Nolan’s closing argument, jury deliberated and returned a verdict totaling $9,188,000.00, finding the Plaintiff’s exposure to a product manufactured and distributed by Georgia-Pacific caused her cancer. Georgia-Pacific appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals challenging the trial court’s refusal to apply Maryland’s statutory cap on Mrs. Pransky’s non-economic damages and attacking the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s causation evidence. The Court of Special Appeals held that the loss of consortium claim was capped, but affirmed $7,438,000 of the judgment. Pransky v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 2352, September Term, 1999. Unreported opinion filed July 11, 2001. Georgia-Pacific petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. In its Opinion filed on June 11, 2002, in Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Lisa J. Pransky, et al., No. 107, September Term, 2001, the Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiffs successfully passed the evidentiary test for bystander asbestos exposure, that the evidence was sufficient to establish the exposure as a substantial factor in the Plaintiff’s contracting asbestos-related cancer, and that the cap did not apply. With interest, the judgment affirmed by the Court resulted in Georgia-Pacific’s payment of $9,838,000. The case is significant not only because Plaintiffs prevailed in establishing that Mrs. Pransky’s mesothelioma originated prior to the effective date of Maryland’s 1986 cap statute, but also because it is the first plaintiff’s verdict to be upheld against Georgia-Pacific arising from its manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing joint compound.
