FOLLOW US

A legal malpractice case filed by Dr. Michael D. Kotler against New Jersey-based law firm Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC will soon move north, as both parties have agreed to transfer the case from Louisiana federal court to the District of New Jersey.

In a joint motion filed Monday, Dr. Kotler and the law firm requested that the case be relocated to New Jersey. As part of the agreement, Porzio Bromberg also committed to withdrawing a pending motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, which it had filed in June in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Background: Claims of Legal Misconduct and Business Fallout

Dr. Kotler initially filed the suit in February 2025 in state court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. He accused Porzio Bromberg and firm principal Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss of providing conflicted legal advice that led to the collapse of his medical business, RemoteMD, and ultimately his personal bankruptcy.

According to Kotler, the law firm pulled him into a business deal without proper counsel or conflict waivers, and later withheld key contracts and email communications. His complaint asserts causes of action for:

• Legal negligence

• Breach of contract

• Breach of fiduciary duty

Jurisdiction Challenge and Motion to Dismiss

After the case was removed to federal court in May, Porzio Bromberg quickly filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Louisiana court lacked jurisdiction over the Morristown, New Jersey-based firm. In the motion, the firm asserted it had no operations in Louisiana, nor had it conducted business there — aside from its work for RemoteMD, a Delaware-registered LLC.

The firm also noted that the only physical meeting related to RemoteMD took place in Houston, Texas, and that all other relevant activities were based in New Jersey.

Agreement to Transfer: Avoiding Dismissal

Following jurisdictional discovery, both sides agreed that New Jersey was the appropriate venue. In the joint motion, the parties stated:

“The interest of justice is served: because all parties consent to the venue of United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; because the parties agree that, and all facts known to the parties suggest that, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction; because there is greater access to witness and evidence in New Jersey; because the New Jersey District Court for the District of New Jersey is less congested; and because no parties’ rights would be prejudiced by the transfer.”

Porzio Bromberg and Wheatley-Liss confirmed that, if the transfer were granted, their previous dismissal motion would be moot.