The opinion of the court was delivered by: O'neill, J.
Plaintiff Allen L. Feingold, proceeding pro se, is a disbarred former attorney.*fn1 Now before me are motions to dismiss Feingold's Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of defendants Andrew P. Moore and Moore and Reimenchneider, LLC, defendants Unitin Direct and Kemper Auto & Home Insurance Company and defendant John Blumenthal. For the reasons that follow, I will grant defendants' motions.
In this action Feingold asserts claims arising out of his alleged representation of defendants Cindy Brenner, Devon Brenner and Robert Moraux*fn2 in matters related to "their financial and business problems" and in Brenner v. Giuranna, No. 682 (Phila. Cty. Ct. Comm. Pl. June Term 2005)*fn3 , a personal injury case arising from a motor vehicle accident*fn4 involving the Brenners. Dkt. No. 22 at ¶ 20-22. Moraux was not a party to the motor vehicle litigation. Feingold alleges that
[i]t was agreed by and between the Brenner and Moraux defendants that at the time of the closing of the motor vehicle matter that Plaintiff, Allen L. Feingold would be compensated for the work that he, his associates and employees performed including for their extensive work, costs and investment of time and money put forth for the Brenner and Moraux defendants . . . .
Feingold claims that he ceased to represent the Brenners and Moraux while "the motor vehicle collision matter was still pending . . . ." Id. at ¶ 25. In explaining why he ceased to represent the Brenners and Moraux, Feingold does not reference his suspensions or disbarrment, instead he claims that "because of a change in family circumstances . . . the Brenner and Moraux defendants wished to change representation . . . ." Id. at ¶ 24. He asserts that he "was related to Defendant, Cindy Brenner's Husband and after several incidents occurred, Mr. Brenner and his wife, Defendant Cindy Brenner became estranged and the Defendant, Cindy Brenner felt that she could no longer have Plaintiff, Feingold, represent her or her daughter in the motor vehicle case." Id. ¶ 34.
In fact, Feingold never entered an appearance on behalf of the Brenners or Moraux in the matter of Brenner v. Giuranna. Instead, his wife, Dora R. Garcia,*fn5 entered an appearance on their behalf in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Dkt. No. 23 at ECF ¶. 32-33. On April 13, 2006, just over one month after Feingold was first suspended from the practice of law, the case was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas for Bucks County. See Id. at ECF p. 36; Brenner v. Giuranna, No. 2007-06103 (Bucks Cty. Ct. Comm. Pl.). It does not appear that Feingold ever entered an appearance on behalf of the Brenners in the action while it was pending in Bucks County. Dkt. No. 23 at ECF p. 38. The docket entries for the matter in Bucks County show no activity after the case was transferred until July 25, 2007. Id. A praecipe to substitute the appearance of defendant John Blumenthal, Esq. on behalf of the Brenners was filed on September 25, 2007. Id.
Feingold claims that after he ceased to represent the Brenners and Moraux, Cindy Brenner stated unequivocally that all of her, her daughter's and her father's obligations to Plaintiff Feingold, his associates and employees would be paid in full from any settlement, award or verdict in the motor vehicle case and that all out of pocket costs and expenses would be paid by their new lawyer before the transfer of their file.
Dkt. No. 22 at ¶ 36a. Feingold contends that he "forwarded all relevant portions of the file to Defendant, Blumenthal, who used then [sic] to substantially assist in proceeding with this matter and bringing same to a positive conclusion." Id. at ¶ 37. The case settled on or about March 17, 2010, over four years after Feingold's suspension and disbarrment. Dkt. No. 23 at ECF p. 42.
Feingold was not listed as a payee on the check issued in connection with the settlement. Dkt. No. 24 at ECF p. 6; see also Dkt. No. 22 at ¶ 29 ("none of the defendants even had the courtesy to notify the plaintiff regarding the settlement of the motor vehicle case, which they had promised, for only by a stroke of luck did the plaintiff become aware of same"). Feingold asserts he "brought to a successful conclusion the property damage claims from this collision" and that Blumenthal "st[ole] his expenses and costs" and withheld "all fees justly owed to" Feingold. Dkt. No. 22 at ¶¶ 40, 49.
Defendants Andrew Moore and Moore & Reimenchneider represented Claire Giuranna as a defendant in the automobile collision matter. Plaintiff contends that he contacted Moore and an "agreement/promise was entered into between them to protect all of [Feingold's] Fees, Expenses and Costs." Id.¶ 40. He further alleges that he wrote to Moore on December 11, 2007, "confirming [Feingold's] liens for fees, expenses and costs by placing Feingold's name and that of his associate on an[y] monies meant for the Brenners." Id. ¶ 41. Feingold asserts that on more than one occasion thereafter, "Moore confirmed his agreement and promises to" Feingold. Id.
¶ 44. Feingold asserts that when he learned that the automobile collision matter had concluded, "he contacted Defendant Moore . . . and he was informed that [ ] Blumenthal directed him not to include either [ ] Feingold or Dora Garcia's name on the check and that the insurance companies on the case, Defendants[ ] Unitrin Direct and/or ...