Country Classics At Morgan Hill Homeowners' Ass'n Inc. v. Country Classics At Morgan Hill Llc

• Decision Date: 27 April 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 09–CV–4903.
• Citation: 780 F.Supp.2d 367
• Parties: COUNTRY CLASSICS AT MORGAN HILL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a/k/a Country Classics at Morgan Hill Condominium Association, Inc., Plaintiffv.COUNTRY CLASSICS AT MORGAN HILL, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

780 F.Supp.2d 367

COUNTRY CLASSICS AT MORGAN HILL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a/k/a Country Classics at Morgan Hill Condominium Association, Inc., Plaintiff

v.COUNTRY CLASSICS AT MORGAN HILL, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 09–CV–4903.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

April 27, 2011.

Mark F. Himsworth, Hamburg Rubin Mullin Maxwell & Lupin, Lansdale, PA, for Plaintiff.Sean R. Sullivan, Curtin & Heefner LLP, Morrisville, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RUFE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Country Classics at Morgan Hill, LLC's (“CCMH”) Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III and Motion for a More Definite Statement as to Count I (doc. no. 2) of Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. no. 1). This is a civil action that arises from the sale of condominium units to individual owners (the “unit owners”). For the following reasons, the Motions are denied in part and granted in part.

I. Background¹

Defendant CCMH, is the Declarant and developer of a condominium known as a Country Classics at Morgan Hill (the “Development”).² The Development consists of townhouse dwellings, two-story buildings with dwellings on each floor (“condominiums”), and the “common facilities.” ³⁴ The Development is enclosed within a retaining wall and is bordered by other developments constructed and marketed by CCMH, and a golf course owned by CCMH or a closely-related entity.⁵ Although CCMH has sold units within the Development, it remains a unit owner.⁶ Each unit owner is a member of the Country Classics at Morgan Hill Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”). Unit owners are required to financially support the Association.⁷

Through the Declaration of Condominium for Country Classics at Morgan Hill (“Declaration”), CCMH established the Association to manage and maintain the Development.⁸ Specifically, the Association was tasked with repairing any defects in the Development at its own expense,⁹ including those affecting the retaining wall.¹⁰ Problems that have arisen include driveways that crumbled as a result of Defendant's failure to achieve proper asphalt pavement and stone sub-base thickness,¹¹ water leaks attributed to improperly installed fire suppression systems,¹² retaining walls that have developed fissures and instability as a result of improper construction,¹³ deficiently constructed breezeways that do not meet design specifications or adequately protect individuals from the weather, ¹⁴ inadequate and incomplete landscaping that does not comply with design specifications,¹⁵ and storm water retention as a result of improperly constructed water drainage systems behind units 173 and 174. ¹⁶ As the Declarant, CCMH warranted against structural defects in these common elements.¹⁷

The Association filed the instant, three-count Complaint on October 3, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. CCMH removed the case on October 26, 2009 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ¹⁸ At Count One, the Association alleges that CCMH breached the Declaration and/or the warranties provided thereto by neglecting to pay the proper unit owner assessments,¹⁹ miscalculating the annual capital reserve necessary to maintain the Development ²⁰ and failing to properly construct and/or install the Development's driveways, fire suppression systems, retaining walls, breezeways, landscaping, and drainage systems. At Count Two, the Association alleges that CCMH was unjustly enriched because it benefitted from the retaining wall that the Association is charged with maintaining under the Declaration, and that the language in the Declaration establishing that duty is unconscionable. In count three, the Association avers that Defendant's failure to properly address the Development's defects constitute violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law ²¹ (“UTPCPL”).²² The Association is seeking compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and treble damages in the amount of $1,190,917.36.

Defendant now moves to dismiss Counts Two and Three and order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint dividing Count One into separate counts for each of the allegations contained therein.

II. Standards of ReviewA. Motion for a More Definite Statement

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, that a “party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” ²³ Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires only a short and plain statement of the claim, motions for a more definite statement are “highly disfavored.” ²⁴ Therefore, 12(e) motions will be granted only “if a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably be required to make a responsive pleading.” ²⁵

B. Motion to Dismiss

A complaint can be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff has not presented “ ‘enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence’ of [a] necessary element.” ²⁶ A court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine, whether under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” ²⁷ However, Plaintiffs' “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions” need not be accepted as true by the court.²⁸ At this stage, the court does not determine whether the non-moving party will prevail, but whether it will be permitted to offer evidence in support of the claims in the complaint. ²⁹

This particular pleading standard, described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) as “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” ³⁰ has been addressed twice by the Supreme Court of the United States in recent years, first in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ³¹ and then in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.³² The Court in Twombly articulated a “plausibility” standard that a plaintiff must meet by its factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss.³³ The Court described it as a level higher than suspicion or speculation.³⁴ Iqbal clarified that “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” ³⁵

III. DiscussionA. Motion for More Definite Statement: Count I

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence ... must be stated in a separate count” if doing so would promote clarity.³⁶ “The use of separate counts becomes increasingly important when a plaintiff files suit against multiple ... defendants and alleges various claims against each.” ³⁷

Here, CCMH requests that Plaintiff amend Count I of its Complaint because it includes eight separate breach-of-contract claims. Defendant, however, apparently recognizes that Plaintiff has alleged the following: (1) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to pay assessments to Plaintiff; (2) breach of fiduciary duty for Defendant's failure to properly capitalize the Association's reserve fund; (3) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to properly construct the complex's driveways; (4) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to properly install the complex's fire suppression systems; (5) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to properly construct a retaining wall; (6) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to properly construct the complex's breezeways; (7) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to properly landscape the complex; and (8) breach of contract for Defendant's failure to properly construct the storm-water-drainage systems located behind units 173 and 174.³⁸

The fact that Defendant has successfully identified the separate claims in Count I—which are delineated by headings in underlined, bold-face type—demonstrates that the Association's Complaint is not “so vague or ambiguous” that CCMH cannot properly respond. Furthermore, the Complaint names only one defendant, not several, so CCMH cannot contend that it is unable to determine which party is expected to answer the individual claims.

Thus, because Defendant can easily discern Plaintiff's specific allegations from the face of the Complaint, the motion for a more definite statement will be denied.

B. Motion to Dismiss: Count II1. Unjust Enrichment

In Pennsylvania, a claim for unjust enrichment has three elements: (1) a benefit conferred on the Defendant by Plaintiff; (2) appreciation of that benefit by the Defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of that benefit under circumstances that it would be inequitable for the Defendant to retain the benefit without paying value.³⁹

CCMH asserts that the Association has not stated a claim for unjust enrichment because it fails to allege facts to support its contention that “Defendant and other communities outside of the Condominium enjoy the benefit” of the retaining walls. Additionally, CCMH suggests that the allegation that “Defendant or a related entity” owned the golf-course bordering portions of the retaining walls is insufficient to establish that it received a benefit. CCMH's arguments are misguided.

The Association's Complaint clearly alleges that the retaining walls border adjoining housing developments and a golf course and that Plaintiff is solely responsible for the maintenance of those walls. The fact that the walls border these other entities alone is evidence that the entities enjoy a benefit. Furthermore, Defendant's focus on Plaintiff's allegation that an entity related to the Defendant owns the golf course is misplaced for two reasons. First, the Association claims that CCMH owns the adjoining golf course; ⁴⁰ if this contention is established, Plaintiff will satisfy its burden to show that Defen...