Practice Areas & Industries: Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Our Parking Industry Group is comprised of litigation, corporate, real estate, land use, labor and employment, and tax attorneys practicing in state and federal courts throughout the country who have represented parking industry clients in a wide array of matters. In addition to their substantial legal experience, our clients benefit from the training and skills several of our attorneys have in business and technical fields including engineering, architecture, and accounting.

This multi-disciplinary approach, bringing together seasoned attorneys with a variety of capabilities, enables us to deliver cost-effective and high-quality legal counsel to our industry clients.

We have litigated cases involving land use and zoning disputes, breach of contract claims, property damage and personal injury matters, and construction defect cases. We have also negotiated numerous loan workouts, acquisition and construction financing deals, and licensing agreements.

Representative matters include:

Litigation

  • Defended national parking operator against landlord's $9 million claim for deterioration of the concrete decks of parking facility. After a two week trial, the jury rejected the bulk of landlord's damage claims.
  • Successfully represented parking operator/developer in eminent domain proceedings arising out of the City of Philadelphia's convention center expansion. Obtained favorable payment of just compensation for the condemned property based on the property's development potential rather than its current use as a surface parking lot.
  • Defended national parking operator at preliminary injunction and in a bench trial against landlord's claim for $6 million for deterioration to concrete decks. Obtained judgment on counterclaim and defeated landlord's demand for a monetary judgment on its claims, which facilitated a favorable resolution of the remaining issues.
  • Successful defense of personal injury/wrongful death claims involving parking facility elevator equipment.
  • Prosecuted trespass action on behalf of parking operator against operator of adjacent surface lot, including a claim for loss of revenue, and obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Counseled national parking operator concerning liabilities under three long-term leases for severe deterioration to concrete decks caused by chloride contamination, including delamination, spalling, and corrosion of steel reinforcement. Obtained favorable business resolution.
  • Obtained favorable settlement in litigation involving claims against parking operator for design defect and improper construction brought by neighboring property owner claiming property damage caused by repair of common stucco wall without sufficient expansion joints.
  • Defense of parking operators against claim for wrongful use of adjoining property. Obtained highly favorable settlement.
  • Successfully represented Pittsburgh's Majestic Star Casino against multiple appeals of the Casino's land use approvals (and, specifically, challenges concerning Casino parking management plans and parking garage design) brought by the Pittsburgh Steelers and Pittsburgh Pirates. Obtained favorable rulings from Pittsburgh administrative boards and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which permitted the issuance of the Casino’s land use and building permits.

Regulatory/Land Use

  • On-going representation of major developer seeking to obtain "Specially Planned District" zoning classification, including alternative parking and traffic management plans, for a 21 square block parcel located adjacent to Pittsburgh's Golden Triangle.
  • Assisted a major developer obtain "existing non-conforming use" classification which permitted its major surface lots to continue in operation after an unfavorable zone change.
  • Successfully represented a major property owner obtain zone changes required to develop a regional shopping center. Evaluation of the zone change application focused largely on potential traffic and parking impacts.
  • Successfully represented a long established nonprofit agency developing a private school against community challenges based on parking and loading issues.
  • Successfully represented a residential developer against community claims based on parking design.
  • Preparation of parking, traffic management, and loading regulations for the City of Pittsburgh.
  • Successfully worked with numerous developers, nonprofit agencies, and a major university to obtain highway occupancy permits and other transportation approvals required by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
  • Advised local business organizations with regard to proposed roadway construction, including the proposed expansion of an interstate highway.
  • Advised municipalities, developers, parking lot concessionaires, and parking companies on public contracts, public procurement, and public bidding.

Transactional/Corporate

  • Representation of a national parking company in connection with proposed long term license with the City of Pittsburgh for all City-owned parking facilities.
  • Negotiation and drafting of lease and parking management agreements.
  • Negotiation and drafting of license agreement for parking automated systems.
  • Negotiation of purchase and sale agreements.
  • Preparation of corporate documents and tax returns.
  • Trademark filings.
  • Negotiation of acquisition and construction financing.
  • Negotiation of loan workouts.

 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Is the United States Supreme Court Poised to Overrule or Modify Basic Inc. v. Levinson?
Eric A. Boden, December 02, 2013
On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to Petitioner Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”) in the case entitled Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., f/k/a Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. Halliburton appeals to the...

Third Circuit Holds Motion for Reconsideration Does Not Avoid Prohibition of Appellate Remand Orders
Jonathan M. Stern, September 12, 2013
Not all federal trial court decisions are subject to appellate review. Most decisions to remand a case removed from state court are not reviewable, whether as of right or by extraordinary writ. A recent Third Circuit decision holds that the denial of a motion for reconsideration of a remand order...

Lenders May Be Able To Reduce Litigation Risk by Obtaining Express Consent When a Borrower Pledges the Assets of a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary as Collateral
Stephen J. Shapiro, August 27, 2013
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit suggests steps that lenders who accept the assets of a borrower’s wholly-owned subsidiary as collateral should consider taking to reduce the likelihood of litigation in the event the lender must pursue the...

Pennsylvania’s Superior Court Holds That Loan Term Sheets May Be Binding Contracts
Stephen J. Shapiro, August 27, 2013
A recent decision by Pennsylvania’s Superior Court contains a warning for lenders: loan term sheets may be binding contracts. In County Line/New Britain Realty, LP v. Harleysville National Bank and Trust Company, County Line, a real estate development partnership, sought to borrow more than...

Texas Plaintiff Takes Another Swing at the "Baseball Rule"
Matthew J. Kelly,Samuel W. Silver, August 26, 2013
For many, excitement at the ballpark includes the possibility, however remote, of a batted ball heading into the awaiting throngs in the stands. Because this is considered an ordinary part of the game that fans expect, if not embrace, the “baseball rule” of limited liability has...

Does Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.,Inc. v. Bartlett Herald the Demise of the “Failure-To-Withdraw” Theory?
Kerry C. O'Dell,Carl J. Schaerf, August 01, 2013
In most states that use a “risk utility” test to determine whether a product is “not reasonably safe” (i.e. defective) as designed, an alternative design for the product is generally considered to be a critical element of the plaintiff’s proof. See, e.g., Restatement...

Supreme Court Holds That Solicitation of Clients is Not a Permitted Use Under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
Arlene Fickler,John R. Timmer, July 10, 2013
On June 19, 2013, in Maracich v. Spears, No. 12-25, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion interpreting the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (the DPPA), which prohibits the use of personal information from motor vehicle records except for 14 specifically enumerated purposes....

The "Effective Vindication" Doctrine is a Virtual Dead Letter After American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
Stephen A. Fogdall,Christopher A. Reese, July 05, 2013
On June 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12- 133, held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce a contractual waiver of class action procedures in an arbitration clause, even where the practical effect of such a...