|
Mr. Fierberg does not divulge the names of his business or personal clients, except in the case of public neighborhood associations and public political advisory commissions since the nature of that representaton and work is public and in the public interest. The case descriptions below seek to inform the reader of the nature of Mr. Fierberg's legal work while protecting the dignity and identity of his clients. Videotapes containing excerpts from nationally-televised presentations involving Mr. Fierberg's clients appear elsewhere on this site and are reproduced because the clients previously made informed decisions to publish their cause, case, and/or identities.
Jane Doe, a minor, v. John Doe. Represented the plaintiff Jane, who was multiply raped at gunpoint in a local park. Jane and John were classmates. In a civil suit, Jane filed suit against John, claiming that evidence discovered after the rape indicated that he had set her up to be sexually assaulted by his friends. Jane also claimed that John's family had used its wealth and resources to arrange for John to leave the country and avoid suit before expiration of the statute of limitations. After extensive pre-trial litigation and motions, John was located and served with the complaint. His motions to dismiss the litigation were denied. Jane obtained a substantial, confidential settlement shortly after discovery in the case began.
Client v. John Doe. Represented young man who sustained a compound fracture and other significant injuries in an automobile accident caused by a negligent driver. The case was settled pre-litigation for the maximum amount of available insurance.
Kara "M," individually, and on behalf of her minor son, "Nico" v. District of Columbia et al. Along with my partner, Peter Grenier, represented family of a 12 year old boy who was sexually assaulted at an overnight Summer camp owned and operated by the District of Columbia. Suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the District and others alleging civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983) and other common law claims. Extensive discovery established that numerous children at this camp were left unsupervised for extended periods of time, and that other campers had been sexually assaulted. The facts and circumstances of this case were the subject of a lead article in The Legal Times. The family accepted a substantial financial settlement.
Jacqueline "R," individually, and on behalf of her minor son, "Ronnie" v. District of Columbia et al. Represent the family of an 11 year old boy who was sexually assaulted at an overnight Summer camp owned and operated by the District of Columbia. The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and resulted in a verdict in favor of our client in the amount of $550,000. The District's post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict were denied, and the District paid the entire judgment plus interest and court costs. Published reports of this case and the trial may be reviewed in the May 30, 2005 and June 4, 2005 editions of the Washington Post.
Client v. B. Associates, Inc. Represented a homeowner against an architectural firm alleging that the firm was negligent in supervising the construction and payments to the general c ontractor for a substantial renovation of a historic Georgetown home. After a six day jury trial, jury entered a verdict in favor of the homeowner in the amount of $160,000.
Brown v. Client Corporation ("CC") et al. Represented the defendant CC, a non-profit housing services and community advocate organization involved in assisting low and moderate income families with access to credit nationwide. Suit was filed against CC on several legal theories in a verified complaint containing some 217 paragraphs of allegations. The motion to dismiss the complaint filed on CC's behalf was granted before the initial scheduling conference for the case. Plaintiff's subsequent motions to reconsider the order of dismissal in favor of CC were denied.
Client Corporation ("CC") v. Dyer. Represented CC, a prominent business in the field of association management. Bergman alleged that one of its officers and directors, Dyer, had engaged in secret negotiations with a CC client for the purpose of obtaining his own contract with the client. As a result, the client broke its contract with CC and transferred its business to a competing company secretly established by Dyer. CC filed a claim against the client before the American Arbitration Association and was awarded all of its lost income from the contract. CC filed a civil suit against Dyer, and the jury entered a substantial six figure verdict against Dyer for compensatory and punitive damages. CC prevailed in two separate appeals filed by Dyer to overturn the jury's verdict.
OTC v. Numerous Clients. Represented numerous defendants, all of whom had been partners of a law firm that was sued by its landlord for an alleged breach of its commercial lease agreement. The suit sought hundreds of thousands of dollars from these defendants. Prior to trial, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, thereby dismissing the landlord's claim. The trial court's order was successfully defended on appeal, although a portion of the landlord's claim was reinstated. That claim, however, was dismissed by the trial court as a result of another motion filed on behalf of defendants. No further appeal was filed.
Client v. John and Jane Does. Represented a home buyer in suit against the seller, real estate brokers, and brokerage firm alleging fraud and other misrepresentations for failing to disclose severe flooding problems with the property at the time of sale. Defendants' motions to dismiss the litigation were denied, and Client accepted a substantial settlement from all defendants prior to trial.
Estate of Deceased College Student v. Phi Sigma Kappa, et al. Represented the family of college student who died following an evening of initiation at a "Bid Night" sponsored by a chapter of a national fraternity. Discovery in the case uncovered internal documents of the fraternity demonstrating that the fraternity's risk-management programs were not unilaterally working to prevent injuries or death from the misuse of alcohol during fraternity events, and that senior members of the fraternity had long-ago recommended that the fraternity go "dry" to prevent additional incidents of injury or death. Those recommendations were not adopted by the national fraternity. The national fraternity's motion to dismiss the claims against it were denied. Subsequently, the family accepted a settlement from the fraternity and numerous of its members that included economic and non-economic terms.
Client v. Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. Represented college student against the fraternity in a case alleging that the defendant violently hazed him by, among other things, beating him, whipping him, and holding a heat lamp to his face to darken his skin because he was not deemed "black enough" to gain admission to the fraternity. After several days of trial, the jury entered a verdict of $375,000, compensating Client for his injuries and awarding him punitive damages against the fraternity.
In re Ms. Doe. Ms. Doe was a freshman when she went to a dorm room with an acquaintance to socialize. Ms. Doe became extremely intoxicated and incapacitated, and her companion had sexual intercourse with her. The following day, Ms. Doe reported the incident to local police and an investigation began. The students lived in the same dormitory building, and Ms. Doe asked the University to remove her alleged attacker from the dormitory since she regularly encountered him after the incident while going to and from her room and classes. The University did not remove the student, claiming that it would wait until the outcome of the criminal investigation or that it would assist her in moving. We intervened on behalf of the student, initiated student disciplinary proceedings, and demanded that the alleged attacker be removed from our client's dormitory based upon Title IX. Immediately thereafter, the University arranged to have the student's housing switched to another location on campus. A settlement resulted of the disciplinary proceedings resulted in numerous changes in housing, class schedules, and other circumstances designed to allow Ms. Doe to continue attending the university without any contact with or by her alleged attacker, regardless of whether the state ever criminally prosecutes him for his actions.
Ms. Jane Doe v. Former Boyfriend. Represented Jane Doe in civil proceedings against her former boyfriend who brutally raped and tortured her after learning that she had been in a relationship with another man. Defendant was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to jail for his actions. Civil claims were brought against the defendant in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland while he remained incarcerated. Defendant filed frivolous counterclaims against Ms. Doe alleging that she had inflicted extreme emotional distress on him by engaging in sexual relations with another without telling him. A substantial six-figure settlement was reached on behalf of Ms. Doe, which also protected her from any future contact with defendant upon his release from jail.
Mrs. "B" v. John Doe. (Worcester County) Represented Mrs. "B" as trial counsel after she was secretly videotaped while using a private bathroom in the defendant's condominium where Mrs. "B" and her husband were vacationing. The defendant obtained (and later watched) approximately 12 minutes of videotape of Mrs. "B" as she engaged in acts of personal hygiene. Suit was filed alleging a number of civil claims, including a claim under Maryland Criminal Law Code § 3-902, which prohibits videotape surveillance of others with a prurient interest and creates a civil cause of action for victims. Despite numerous mediations and attempts to settle the matter, the defendant refused to offer a fair settlement. Defendant justified his position, in substantial part, on the grounds that the case was pending in a conservative, small town on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and that no jury in that jurisdiction would award (or ever had awarded) significant damages for this type of misconduct. Mrs. "B" was advised to reject defendant's settlement offer and proceed to trial. The case went to trial in January, 2005 and lasted less than two days. The jury found in favor of Mrs. "B" on all counts of her complaint, awarding her $101,250 in compensatory and $200,000 in punitive damages, for a total verdict of $301,250. The verdicts were paid within thirty days. Mrs. "B's" post-trial motion seeking reimbursement of her attorney's fees and costs is pending before the Court.
Client v. PEPCO. Represented Client in a suit against PEPCO after Client received a deep gash across her face from defendant's guy wires. The guy wires lacked the protective covering required under the National Electric Code. Client accepted a substantial settlement prior to trial.
Clients v. Apartment Complex. Represented Client and her four children against their landlord following their unlawful eviction from their home. The family lost all of their belongings as a result of the eviction since their belongings had been put on the street while they were gone. After realizing the family had been wrongfully evicted, the landlord refused to allow them back into the apartment unless they agreed to waive any legal claims. Suit was filed, and the family agreed to a substantial settlement prior to trial.
Clients v. W. Neighborhood Association. Represented Mr. and Mrs. Client in a case arising out of a severe crush injury and below-knee amputation suffered by Mr. Client while he was volunteering at a clean up project sponsored by his neighborhood association. Client sustained these injuries when another volunteer lost control of a Skid Steer Loader and dropped its steel bucket onto Client. The firm retained three nationally-recognized experts to support Client's position that the operator of the vehicle acted negligently. The case settled in mediation for the maximum amount of available insurance coverage.
In re April 16, 2007 Massacre at Virginia Tech University. Represent 20 families who suffered devestating losses as a result of the massacre of students and faculty on the campus of Virginia Tech. Numerous clients lost loved ones, while others suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of violent gunshot wounds. While Viriginia Tech was widely praised (by its own officials and from many outside sources) for its handling of the events leading to and following the tragedy, our investigation revealed substantial evidence demonstrating the University's potential liability for gross negligence. That evidence included the disclosure of e-mails from University personnel confirming that certain buildings had gone into lockdown following the murders in West Ambler Johnston and prior to the onset of the larger massacre at Norris Hall, and that University personnel had been warned to stay off campus before Cho opened fire at Norris Hall. As well, the evidence revealed that the University Policy Group revised the e-mail correspondence ultimately sent out at 9:26 a.m., removing references to the facts that one student had died and another was in critical condition at an area hospital as a result of gunshot wounds suffered in a dormitory room. As a result of the delay in sending this e-mail or any other warning, and the revision of its content that rendered it ineffective and misleading, students and faculty never received timely, accurate, deserved warnings about the actual danger on campus. As a result, many left their apartments and dormitory rooms (positions of safety), and (unlike certain University personnel) walked straight into harms way oblivious of the dangers and need to protect themselves. Following negotiations with the most senior legal representatives for the Commonwealth of Virginia and University, an historic settlement valued in excess of $11 Million was reached, which was made available to all victims of the tragedy and, ultimately, accepted by nearly all victims or their representatives. Among the terms, seriously injured victims will receive substantial compensation in addition to health care insurance and other benefits for the rest of their lives. Families who lost loved ones will receive substantial compensation and other benefits, although Virginia law regarding sovereign immunity unfairly reduced the amount of funds that should have been available to compensate all of the victims for their unprecedented hardship and loss.
Estate of Deceased College Student v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity. Represented the family of a freshman at Old Dominion University who aspirated on his vomit and died following the fraternity's Big Brother/Little Brother initiation night. At the beginning of that evening, four fraternity pledges sought to satisfy the requirements for obtaining membership. By the end of that evening, all four had lost consciousness from alcohol intoxication. The Client died later that morning, and another pledge was rushed to the hospital in critical condition. Discovery in the case uncovered the local chapter's "Top 100" list of fraternity memories, and 11 of the top 12 memories involved drinking or puking from alcohol. The Washington Post featured this incident in an article focusing on the prevalence of these types of fatalities in college. The family accepted a substantial financial settlement prior to trial, which also included non-monetary terms designed to forever change the chapter, its alcohol policies, and prevent similar tragedy.
Client v. Band, Landlord, and Numerous Others. Represent young man who sustained a traumatic brain injury and other extensive injuries when he and four others were pushed out of a third-story window at a music concert at "Solar Haus" in Blacksburg, Virginia. For some 20 or so years, Solar Haus had been holding crowded, commercial concerts despite the fact that it was built and zoned exclusively for residential use and lacked a public hall permit. During the concert, which was held on the third floor of the apartment, part of the audience was encouraged to mosh by the band, and this continued without control by the concert's sponsors. The group of moshers stumbled into the Client and four or so other attendees who were standing away from the moshing at the back of the room. The Client fell back against a mattress that was apparently covering a window so that noise from the concerts did not disturb neighboring residential properties. The window frame broke away, and Jason and four others fell three stories onto concrete. One person died from the fall. The litigation was settled prior to trial against all defendants for a substantial sum of money.
Retained to represent family of Matthew Carrington who died during a local fraternity initiation at California State University at Chico. Suit was filed in May, 2005. The case has been settled with significant financial settlements from many of the defendants. This case has been portrayed in numerous national stories concerning the dangers of hazing, and the client’s surviving mother was successful in causing passage of landmark anti-hazing legislation in California.
Two Jane Does v. Unidentified National Sorority, et al. Represented the families of two young women who were given third-degree burns by their sorority sisters during a hazing ritual. The ritual included disturbing simulations involving sexual content. ABC 20/20 featured this incident in a report dealing with the purported increase of violent hazing in sororities. The families accepted a substantial financial settlement prior to trial (from the sorority and individual perpetrators), which also included the imposition of numerous non-monetary sanctions designed to change the initiation practices and prevent future injuries.
Estate of Deceased College Student v. Numerous Defendants. Represented the family of college student who died following an evening of initiation by the Knights of College Leadership at Ferris State University (Big Rapids, Michigan). CBS 48 Hours portrayed this incident in a story dealing with fraternity initiations and drinking deaths. The fraternity pledges were directed to play a drinking game involving the "wheel of torture." The Client lost consciousness, and was carried to an upstairs bedroom and left unattended, despite the fact that fraternity brothers knew that he was helpless and needed to be monitored. The Client died of alcohol poisoning, and is survived by his parents, sister and nephew. The family obtained a substantial financial settlement
Client v. Sigma Chi Fraternity et al. With Jim Kitchens, Esq. of Jackson, Mississippi, represent a young man who sustained a traumatic brain injury during a fraternity pledge event and party. Suit was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi and settled prior to trial.
Client v. SMF High School, et al . Represented a freshman high school student who was hazed by older, stronger wrestlers in the school's locker room. On numerous occasions the Client was forcibly held down and prodded on the rectum with a broomstick the perpetrators named "Pedro." These incidents prompted students to humiliate the plaintiff in the school hallways with taunts that he "liked it up the butt," or that he was gay. ABC 20/20 featured this incident in a report on the increase in violent hazing in high schools. The family accepted a substantial confidential settlement on behalf of his client from the individual perpetrators and the school, and obtained concessions from the school designed to implement important changes in its codes of conduct to prevent future harm to students.
Estate of Deceased College Student v. Omega Psi Phi Fraternity et al . Represented the family of a college student who died following an evening of initiation by the Rho Psi Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity at Tennessee State University. The Client was a minister to youth in his community. He was also an honorably discharged Navy veteran who had been awarded the National Medal of Honor. The family obtained a substantial confidential financial settlement.
Client v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity et al. With Mary Alice McLarty, Esq. of Dallas, Texas, represent a young man who sustained severe injuries when he beaten and compelled to drink gallons of water in a highly-publicized incident of hazing at Southern Methodist University. Suit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Depositions of national fraternity representatives demonstrated numerous prior risk management violations and inadequate supervision by the national fraternity. A substantial settlement was obtained by the client.
Estates of Numerous Deceased College Students v. Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, et al . Represented the families of five young students who were killed on the side of the road near a fraternity party sponsored by the Pi Eta Chapter of Tau Kappa Epsilon at Texas A&M University. The fraternity is located next to a 5 lane, unlit 65 m.p.h. highway, and it closed the gates to its parking lot and reserved those safe spaces as a "perk" for its own members. Others were directed to park on the highway shoulder, despite the fact that the police had warned the fraternity that this was unsafe and that it had to do something about this practice. Discovery demonstrated that the fraternity engaged in numerous violations of its own risk-management rules, and that it considered "safe and adequate" parking at this location a "basic safety consideration." Y et, it had a long-standing practice of directing its invited guests to park on the highway shoulder - in harm's way. Despite this and other compelling evidence, the trial court dismissed the action (without issuing a written opinion) and the families' appeals all the way to the Texas Supreme Court were denied, reflecting how justice can still be elusive even in the most compelling of circumstances. Legal briefs identifying the facts and circumstances underlying this tragedy (and telling the whole story) are available upon request. One substantial financial settlement was obtained on behalf of one family under its uninsured motorist policy.
Estate of Deceased College Student v. Pi Kappa Alpha House Corporation, et al. Retained by the family of a college student to assist their local counsel, Marquis & Aurbach of Las Vegas, Nevada, in civil litigation arising out of a drowning death during a fraternity pledge event at the University of Nevada, Reno. The case was pending in the District Court of Washoe County, Nevada, and was resolved when the family obtained a substandial financial settlement.
Estate of G.B. v. Chi Psi Fraternity et al. Represent the family of college student, who died following an evening of hazing by a fraternity and its members at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Suit was filed on April 26, 2006 and is pending in the District Court, County of Boulder, Colorado.
Client v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, Colorado, et al. More widely-known as the "Columbine High School Massacre." My partner, Peter Grenier, successfully represented the family of a math teacher at Columbine, in a Federal Civil Rights action against numerous parties responsible for the death of this beloved teacher. Peter prevailed against the defendants' motions to dismiss the action (where others did not), and then obtained a large, confidential settlement on behalf of the family. Persons more interested in the compelling facts and legal theories of this case are encouraged to contact Peter and/or review the November 27, 2001 Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by Judge Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge of the United States Court for the District of Colorado.
Estate of Gary DeVercelly, Jr. v. Rider University, et al. Retained to represent family who lost their son as a result of a hazing incident during the Spring of 2007 at Rider University. Two senior university officials were indicted by a Grand Jury as a result of the incident, although the local prosecutor decided later to dismiss the indictment. Civil claims have been filed against the University, national and local fraternity chapter, and numerous individuals, including school officials and local fraternity officers. The case is currently in litigation.
Capitol Hill Restoration Society ("CHRS" and North Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association ("NLPNA") . For several years, two neighborhood associations and dozens of residents near the 1300 block of Constitution Avenue, N.E. fought a legal and economic battle with Trant Liquors. CHRS, NLPNA and the neighbors claimed that Trant destroyed the peace, order and quiet of their neighborhood by, among other things, selling fortified alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons, by providing drug paraphernalia to customers, and by allowing its parking lot and immediate surrounds to be used for drug dealing and other illegal activities. Despite such allegations and proof, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for the District of Columbia renewed Trant's license. Thereafter, Doug was engaged to represent the citizens in appeals to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Two appeals to the Court of Appeals were successful. Trant lost its license, closed, and the property was converted to housing.
Logan Circle Citizens' Association. Represented the Association in its effort to cause revocation of a license by held by F&W Market to sell beer and wine. The Association claimed that the establishment destroyed its peace, order and quiet by harboring drug traffickers within the establishment. Undercover police officers testified to numerous drug purchases inside the establishment in front of the store's owners. After several days of hearings, the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board revoked F&W Market's license.
Dupont Circle Citizens' Association. Represented the Association in several highly contested neighborhood battles involving bars and restaurants holding alcoholic beverage licenses. Efforts to reduce the negative impact of these on residential properties, and in extending the scope of an area-wide moratorium on new licensed establishments, were successful. Kalorama Citizens' Association. Represented the Association in its effort to establish a moratorium on the issuance of new alcoholic beverage licenses in the popular Adams Morgan area of the District of Columbia. The Association's purpose in seeking the moratorium was to stem the growth of restaurants and bars in favor of creating opportunities for other neighborhood businesses to develop and thrive. The Association prevailed after several days of contested hearings before the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Lamond-Riggs Neighborhood Association ("LRNA"). Represented the Association in its efforts to cause revocation of alcoholic beverage licenses to a number of establishments following an incident where a D.C. police officer was gunned-down in his vehicle outside a nightclub. The Association alleged that these establishments contributed to the drug-trade and violence in the neighborhood. The Association was successful in its efforts following numerous hearings before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Condominium Association Residents v. Leisureworld. Senior citizen residents of this condominium association filed suit alleging that portions of the Association's land were taken as a result of the defendants' development of a neighboring condominium building. Residents of the Association alleged that their properties had lost value and important "green space," and that critical access to their homes was being threatened by the development scheme. Settlement was reached compensating the Association and guaranteeing that access by its members to their homes would not be obstructed.
|
