Download Regular Type; Download Large Type; Read after the jump.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. )
and ROBERT B. WEISER, )
Plaintiffs )
v. ) 25-cv-0423
MICHAEL HARTLEIB, )
Defendant )
Complaint
1. Robert B. Weiser (“Weiser”) is a Pennsylvania citizen.
2. Weiser Law Firm, P.C. (“Weiser Firm”) is a Pennsylvania professional corporation that offers representation in shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Weiser is the sole owner of Weiser Firm. The Weiser Firm’s sole office is in Berwyn, PA.
3. Michael Hartleib (“Hartleib”) is a California citizen.
* * *
8. Hartleib contacted the Weiser Firm to discuss filing a shareholder derivative action against mobile phone service provider Sprint.
9. Hartleib proposed that he should share any attorney’s fees the Firm might recover, a proposal Weiser found extremely troubling.
9. Weiser concluded the Weiser Firm could not represent Hartleib in that action because of Hartleib’s role in a different pending securities class action against Sprint.
10. Weiser filed a derivative suit against Sprint in Kansas state court. (“Sprint Litigation”). The Sprint Litigation was brought on behalf of another shareholder-plaintiff, Monica Ross-Williams (“Ross-Williams), a Michigan citizen.
11. The Sprint Litigation reached a settlement.
12. Hartleib filed an objection to the settlement.
13. Hartleib contacted the Weiser Firm and offered to withdraw the objection if the Firm hired him to consult on future securities litigations.
14. Weiser declined the offer.
15. The Kansas court approved the settlement over Hartleib’s objection.
16. The Weiser Firm received attorney’s fees as part of the settlement in the Spring Litigation.
* * *
22. At some point, Weiser discovered that Jeffrey Silow (“Silow”), a contract attorney who performed document review for the Weiser Firm during the Sprint Litigation, had previously been disbarred in Pennsylvania.
23. Hartleib learned that Silow had worked on the Sprint Litigation.
24. Hartleib emailed Weiser, accusing him of misleading the Kansas court. He copied eleven attorneys on the email, including two Weiser Firm attorneys and a third attorney based in Pittsburgh. He also copied the administrative assistant of the Kansas state court.
25. Hartleib called Ross-Williams, verbally harassed and threatened her, and assailed the Weiser Firm as a criminal enterprise.
26. Hartleib then emailed Ross-Williams, again accusing the Weiser Firm of fraudulent billing, operating as a criminal cabal, and stating “I have contacted the district attorney’s offices in Pennsylvania and Kansas and will be filing formal complaints against Weiser and the Weiser Firm.” He copied fifteen attorneys on the email, including Weiser, the same two Weiser Firm attorneys, and the same Pittsburgh-based attorney. He again copied the administrative assistant of the Kansas state court.
27. The Kansas court issued a protective order barring Hartleib from contacting Ross-Williams. Hartleib continued sending similar emails after the court entered that order.
28. Hartleib contacted Abelson Legal Search, the Philadelphia-based legal recruitment firm that had placed Silow at the Weiser Firm, accusing Weiser and the Weiser Firm of fraudulent billing and providing fraudulent client services.
29. Hartleib sent multiple emails to Detective Sergeant Thomas Giggins of the Chester County (PA) District Attorney’s office, making similar allegations of fraud against Weiser the Weiser Firm. One email stated “I am going to bring a civil suit against Weiser.”
30. Hartleib filed amicus briefs in several pending proceedings in which the Weiser Firm served as counsel, including one in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and one in state court in Georgia. Those briefs accused Weiser and the Weiser firm of fraudulent billing and making false representations to the court.
31. Hartleib provided a tip to the Wall Street Journal about Silow. The Journal reported on Silow’s disbarred status, his document-review work on the Sprint Litigation, and the fact that the Weiser Firm received only 10 % of its requested legal fees in that litigation.
* * *
Count I: Misrepresentation
77. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference allegations in ¶¶ 1-76, as if fully set forth herein.
78. Defendant’s statements described in the complaint were false and misrepresented facts about Plaintiffs.
Count II: Request for Vexatious Litigant Order
77. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference allegations in ¶¶ 1-76, as if fully set forth herein.
78. Defendant’s conduct in contacting courts, attorneys, and former, current, and prospective clients of the Weiner Firm constitutes vexatious litigation activity and justifies an order from the court prohibiting future activity without leave of this court.
Jurisdictional Facts
1. The allegations relevant to jurisdiction in the Complaint can be taken as true. Plaintiffs have provided copies of all documents described.
2. Six judges on the courts of Chester County (PA) received several unsigned, profanity-laced letters, urging disciplinary action against the Weiser Firm. The letter attached a summary of the Wall Street Journal article and about the 90 percent reduction in attorneys’ fees in the Sprint Litigation. The letters contains similar punctuation and style to other letters, emails, and documents sent by Hartleib. Plaintiffs have provided copies of the letters.
3. Hartleib denies writing or sending the letter to the judges.
4. Hartleib travels throughout the United States in his litigation efforts.
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322: Long Arm
The courts of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States and of this state.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. )
and ROBERT B. WEISER, )
Plaintiffs )
v. ) 25-cv-0423
MICHAEL HARTLEIB, )
Defendant )
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
For Plaintiffs, oppose the motion. (Essay # 9)
For the court, decide the motion. (Essay # 10)
