In Patel v. Primary Construction, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs alleged that improvements made to property being developed by Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP (TLS&S) clients resulted in storm water drainage onto Plaintiffs’ property causing damage.
Plaintiffs commenced this action by Order to Show Cause seeking a preliminary injunction and compensatory damages. The Order to Show Cause sought an Order: (1) enjoining TLS&S’ clients from causing alleged waste and damaging storm water runoff upon Plaintiffs’ property; (2) requiring TLS&S’ clients to implement alternative drainage systems on their property; and (3) monetary damages.
Mr. Castellitto and Mr. Kuebler moved for dismissal arguing that Plaintiffs failed to establish danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and that the injunctive redesign of the drainage system would be inequitable. Mr. Castellitto and Mr. Kuebler further argued that Plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages was inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ demand for a preliminary injunction. Following oral argument, Plaintiffs’ withdrew their Order to Show Cause.
In turn, Plaintiffs’ filed a summons and complaint against TLS&S’ clients again seeking injunctive relief, along with monetary damages premised upon causes of action sounding in trespass and nuisance. Mr. Castellitto and Mr. Kuebler sought dismissal via a pre-answer motion asserting that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Mr. Castellitto and Mr. Kuebler argued that their clients were not causing actionable water runoff onto Plaintiffs’ property, submitting evidence that their clients’ drainage system had been properly designed and inspected by two independent engineers and was permissibly discharging water onto Plaintiffs’ property pursuant to a drainage easement. Mr. Castellitto and Mr. Kuebler further argued that the unsigned and uncorroborated expert affidavit submitted by Plaintiffs’ lacked any evidentiary value. The Court found that the parties had charted a summary judgment course, and granted TLS&S summary judgment. Mr. Castellitto and Mr. Kuebler successfully opposed Plaintiffs’ motion to reargue.