Travis & DeBlase PLLC recently opened its Philadelphia office at 1809 West Oregon Avenue, Suite 201, Philadelphia, PA 19145, expanding the firm’s business litigation practice into Pennsylvania. The move reflects a straightforward reality: many of our existing clients do business in both New York and Philadelphia, and businesses in the Philadelphia market face the same kinds of commercial disputes that we have been handling for years in Manhattan — breach of contract, partnership breakups, fraud, unfair competition, and the full range of disputes that arise when business relationships deteriorate.
What follows is an overview of the business litigation landscape in Philadelphia and what companies should expect when a commercial dispute moves toward litigation in the Pennsylvania courts.
The Philadelphia Commercial Courts
Philadelphia’s Commerce Court, a specialized program within the Court of Common Pleas, handles complex commercial litigation involving claims above a threshold dollar amount. The Commerce Court was designed to provide businesses with judges who have experience in commercial disputes and to move cases through the system more efficiently than the general civil docket. For businesses involved in significant commercial litigation in Philadelphia, the Commerce Court offers several practical advantages: dedicated judges who understand business disputes, a more predictable procedural framework, and a bench that is accustomed to dealing with complex discovery, expert testimony, and sophisticated legal arguments.
Understanding how to navigate the Commerce Court is essential for any business facing litigation in Philadelphia. The procedural rules, discovery practices, and judicial expectations differ from what litigators encounter in New York Supreme Court, and counsel who are not familiar with the local practice risk making avoidable mistakes that affect the outcome of the case.
Breach of Contract Under Pennsylvania Law
The fundamental elements of a breach of contract claim are similar in Pennsylvania and New York: the existence of a valid contract, breach by the opposing party, causation, and damages. But there are meaningful differences in how Pennsylvania courts interpret and enforce contractual provisions that New York practitioners need to understand.
Pennsylvania follows the parol evidence rule strictly, meaning that when a written contract is intended to be the final expression of the parties’ agreement, extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations is generally inadmissible to contradict or vary the written terms. Pennsylvania courts also apply the gist of the action doctrine, which bars tort claims that are essentially repackaged contract claims. This doctrine has significant strategic implications, because it can eliminate fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims that might otherwise survive a motion to dismiss in New York.
The statute of limitations for breach of contract in Pennsylvania is four years, compared to six years in New York. This shorter window means that businesses must act quickly when they become aware of a potential breach, or risk losing their claims entirely.
Partnership and LLC Disputes
Partnership disputes are among the most common forms of business litigation in Philadelphia. When business partners reach an impasse — over strategy, compensation, management authority, or the decision to sell — the resolution depends on the governing documents, the applicable statute, and the conduct of the parties.
Pennsylvania’s Uniform Limited Liability Company Act and Revised Uniform Partnership Act provide the statutory framework for disputes involving LLCs and partnerships, respectively. These statutes establish default rules for management, profit-sharing, fiduciary duties, and dissolution, but the parties’ operating agreement or partnership agreement can modify many of these defaults. The quality of the governing document often determines the outcome of the dispute. A well-drafted operating agreement with clear buy-sell provisions, dispute resolution mechanisms, and management authority can prevent litigation entirely. A poorly drafted agreement — or the absence of any written agreement — almost guarantees it.
We frequently represent business owners in disputes involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, misappropriation of company assets, and squeeze-outs of minority members. These cases require both aggressive litigation and a clear-eyed assessment of the client’s business objectives. Not every dispute needs to go to trial; some are better resolved through a negotiated buyout that preserves the value of the business. The key is having counsel who can handle both paths.
Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Claims
Philadelphia’s business community is competitive, and disputes over customer relationships, proprietary information, and employee departures are common. Pennsylvania adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 2004, providing a statutory framework for misappropriation claims that supplements the common law protections previously available. Under the PUTSA, a trade secret owner can seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and in cases of willful and malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award.
Non-compete agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania, but courts scrutinize them carefully. To be enforceable, a restrictive covenant must be ancillary to an employment relationship or business transaction, supported by adequate consideration, reasonable in duration and geographic scope, and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Pennsylvania courts will not blue-pencil an overbroad non-compete — if the restriction is unreasonable, the court will strike it entirely rather than rewrite it. This is a meaningful difference from New York practice, where courts have historically been more willing to modify unreasonable restrictions to make them enforceable.
Why Philadelphia Businesses Choose Travis & DeBlase
The decision to open a Philadelphia office was not about expanding for the sake of expansion. It was about serving clients who need experienced commercial litigators in a market where the legal landscape is different enough from New York to require local knowledge, but the underlying business problems are the same. Our Philadelphia team, led by Of Counsel attorneys Regina Kiperman and James H. Thomson, brings both Pennsylvania bar admission and the litigation philosophy that has defined our New York practice: thorough preparation, aggressive advocacy, and a focus on outcomes rather than billable hours.
Whether you are a Philadelphia-based business facing a contract dispute, a New York company with operations in Pennsylvania, or a business owner navigating a partnership breakdown, we are positioned to handle the matter from start to resolution.
Contact our Philadelphia office at (215) 515-5765 or our New York office at (212) 940-7075, or visit travisdeblase.com/contact to schedule a consultation.