Neil C. Schur

Shareholder , Philadelphia

• 267-216-2713
• nschur@andersonkill.com

Profile

Experience

• Case Medical, Inc. v. Amada America, Inc. et al., N.J. Superior Ct., Hudson Cty. No. HUD-L-002147-22, Sept. 15, 2025 (obtained favorable jury verdict on 6 of 7 counts for one client and dismissal of all claims against a second client, after nine-week trial in contractual dispute).
• 1418 Master Landlord, LLC v. KBI Services, Inc. d/b/a Kindbody, LLP, Phila. Cty. April Term 2024 No. 1911, slip op., Nov. 18, 2024 (striking confessed judgment of $6.6 million).
• Haart v. Scaglia, No. 2023-01943, 2024 WL 4375387 (1^st Dep’t Oct. 3, 2024) (reversing trial court’s order granting motion to dismiss certain claims on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds).
• Domus BWW Funding, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 2-23-cv-00094, 2024 WL 3761737 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2024) (granting motion for sanctions against defendant for discovery misconduct).
• Chubb National Insurance Company, et al. vs. D’Cunha MD, Jonathan, et al. (W.D. Pa. 2023) (successfully represented physician in insurance coverage case).
• Boris v. Vurimindi (Pa. Super. Ct. No. 1553 EDA 2020, Jan. 25, 2022) (affirming, inter alia, trial court’s order quashing subpoenas to client intervenors).
• Numoda Corporation v. A. Boris (C.C.P. Phila. No. 210402523, Jan. 19, 2022) (overruling defendants’ preliminary objections to client’s complaint for breach of negotiable instrument); see also Numoda Corporation v. J. Boris (C.C.P. Phila. No. 210402531, Jan. 19, 2022) (reaching same result).
• Vurimindi v. Schaheen (C.C.P. Phila. 201904001684, Sept. 3, 2019) (sustaining clients’ preliminary objections to complaint alleging defendants’ failure to comply with order in separate case that plaintiff had appealed).
• Banks v. Owens, 2018 WL 6249709 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2018) (granting motion to dismiss claim against lawyer for science museum who allegedly played role in museum employee’s filing police report of stalking by plaintiff), affirmed (3d Cir. Dec. 13, 2019).
• Fioravanti v. Ettere, Essex Cty. No. ESX-L-1250-17 (unanimous defense verdict dated Dec. 12, 2018, rejecting plaintiff’s effort to “pierce the corporate veil” and recover corporate debts from shareholders), motion for new trial denied, March 1, 2019.
• United States ex rel. Oberg v. PHEAA, 912 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019) (affirming defense verdict rejecting plaintiff’s claim that Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency had defrauded the U.S. Department of Education and damages claim in excess of $350 million).
• Guthrie Healthcare System v. Context Media, Inc., 826 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s liability determination of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’trademarks but reversing overly narrow injunction).
• Reading Hospital System’s Proposed Acquisition of Surgical Institute of Reading (2012) (represented party in administrative proceedings regarding proposed transaction challenged by Federal Trade Commission and Attorney General of Pennsylvania).
• In the Matter of Polypore International, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9327 (2010) (successfully represented four witnesses in depositions and administrative hearing before Federal Trade Commission regarding 2008 two-to-one merger to monopoly of manufacturers of critical component of industrial batteries; result led to divestiture of acquired assets, including companies in the Netherlands and Austria) (FTC Opinion Dec. 13, 2010).
• In re Exide Technologies, 2010 WL 2163190 (3d Cir. June 1, 2010) (concluding, after years of contentious litigation, that purchaser had substantially performed contract, so it was not executory and could not be rejected under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a)). U.S. Bankr. Ct. D. Del. No. 02-11125, Adv. Proc. No. 10-52766 (Jan. 8, 2013),  denied, Feb. 22, 2011.
• Tubbs v. North American Title Agency, Inc., 2010 WL 3044067 (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 2010) (reversing dismissal of plaintiff client’s complaint).
• Shaev v. Sidhu (C.C.P. Phila., Oct. 28, 2008) (represented bank in five consolidated class actions, settled case, represented bank at fairness hearing and on appeal in Superior Court of Pennsylvania and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania), affirmed, Super. Ct. of Pa., 3405 EDA 2008, 3406 EDA 2008, Aug. 9, 2010, denied, Dec. 21, 2010 (Pa).
• Weiss v. Fiber Optic Designs, Inc., 2008 WL 3984166 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2008) (dismissing complaint with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff’s “established pattern of discovery misconduct and willful inattentiveness to his own case”).
• Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F.2d 252 (3d Cir. 2007) (successfully represented plaintiff in obtaining reversal of district court order denying Rule 56(f) motion and allowing discovery).
• Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery (represented Sara Lee Corp. against a civil action for franchise termination and fraud. Obtained directed verdict for the client after seven-week jury trial. Following appeal to the Third Circuit, retried a portion of the case on remand, and case settled.
• Peerless Heater Co. v. Mestek, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2000) (granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment on our client’s Sherman Act Section 1 claim and Lanham Act Section 1125 claim; successfully represented manufacturing client in civil action for damages from false and misleading statements, predatory pricing, price discrimination and related anticompetitive conduct by a competitor against client in the boiler industry, settled on eve of jury trial).
• Shore Slurry Seal v. Koch Industries (D.N.J.) (represented road paving client in contract dispute with counterclaims under Robinson-Patman Act and Sherman Act, settled during jury trial).
• Salomon S.A. v. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.R.I. No. C.A. 98–583 T) (represented ski manufacturer in jury trial arising from gray market dispute regarding skis offered for sale without manufacturer’s authorization in the U.S.
• Santana Products, Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 2d 463 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (granting our client’s motion to dismiss Sherman Act Section 1 claim but denying motion to dismiss Lanham Act Section 1125 claim), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 401 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of Sherman Act Section 1 claim but reversing denial of motion to dismiss Lanham Act Section 1125 claim and dismissing same), denied, 126 S. Ct. 734 (2005).

Speaking Engagements

Publications

News