Frankentek Residential Sys., LLC v. Buerger
| Decision Date | 24 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | 2:12–cv–03505,2:12–cv–00768.,Civil Action Nos. 2:12–cv–00767 |
| Citation | 15 F.Supp.3d 574 |
| Parties | FRANKENTEK RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Reid BUERGER, et al., Defendants. Frankentek Residential Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Reid Buerger, et al., Defendants. Frankentek Residential Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Alan Buerger, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Mark J. Krum, Diamond McCarthy LLP, New York, NY, Edward Seglias, Kathleen Morley, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Fred Warren Jacoby, Chad Evin Kurtz, Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
Frankentek Residential Systems, LLC (“Frankentek Residential”) brings three actions against Reid Buerger, Krista Buerger, Alan Buerger, and Constance Buerger and their limited liability companies Harner Realty 1 LLC, Harner Management LLC, Mathers Road LP, and 4301 Bayberry Drive LLC (collectively, the “Buergers”)1 to recover over $1 million for work it performed on the Buergers' properties. The Buergers bring counterclaims in the three actions against Frankentek Residential, Marc Franken, and Michael Pavluk (collectively, “Frankentek”) for breaches of contract, statutory computer-related offenses, and common law torts. I exercise jurisdiction over the three actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Frankentek has filed motions for partial summary judgment on the Buergers' counterclaims in all three action s.2 For the reasons set forth below, I will grant in part and deny in part Frankentek's motions for partial summary judgment.3
Frankentek's motions for partial summary judgment concern three Buerger properties: (1) a residential property located at 225 Mathers Road, Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 (the “Pennsylvania Property”); (2) a residential property located at 4301 Bayberry Drive, Avalon, New Jersey 08202 (the “New Jersey Property”); and (iii) a residential property located at Lots 85, 86, and 87 Ocean Club, Paradise Island, Bahamas (the “Bahamas Property”) (collectively, the “three Properties”).
Beginning in 2005, the Buergers retained Frankentek Residential to install comprehensive electronic home systems in the three Properties. Reid Buerger Decl. (“Buerger Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 62–3; Franken Decl. ¶ 2, Sept. 16, 2013; ECF No. 63–2.5 Frankentek Residential installed and provided continuous maintenance to the systems until a dispute regarding nonpayment arose in 2010. Franken Decl. ¶ 2, Aug. 16, 2013, ECF No. 60–1. As a result of this dispute, the electronic home systems at the Pennsylvania Property and the New Jersey Property were twice disabled. Buerger Decl. ¶ 3; Franken Decl. ¶ 4, 5, Aug. 16, 2013; Arb. Tr., 78:19–80:13, Buergers' Opp. Br. Ex. B, EC F No. 62–3.
Specifically, on November 13, 2010, the electronic home system at the Pennsylvania Property stopped functioning. Buerger Decl. ¶ 4. As a result, the lighting, HVAC, television, security cameras, and security reporting system at the Pennsylvania Property were no longer operational. Id. Reid Buerger subsequently learned that Frankentek Residential's President Marc Franken (“Franken”) and Vice President Michael Pavluk (“Pavluk”) had remotely disabled or ordered the remote disabling of the system. Id. ¶ 5. When Reid Buerger phoned Franken about the system outage, Franken told Reid Buerger, “We did it,” and Franken admitted to disabling the system because of the nonpayment dispute. Id. ¶ 7. On or around November 16, 2010, Frankentek Residential personnel came to the Pennsylvania Property to restore the electronic home system. Id. ¶ 9. Frankentek Residential personnel simultaneously installed an “electronic bomb” that would allow Frankentek Residential to remotely disable the system in the future. Id. In the early morning of December 6, 2010, Frankentek Residential again disabled the electronic home system at the Pennsylvania Property. Id. ¶ 11; Dec. 6, 2010 Email, Buergers' Opp. Br. Ex. D, ECF No. 62–3. In contrast, Franken states that Frankentek Residential and its personnel ceased to have any physical or remote access to the Pennsylvania Property on November 18, 2010, and he denies ever personally having physical or remote access to the Pennsylvania Property. Franken Decl. ¶¶ 12, 13, Sept. 16, 2013. Franken and Pavluk deny remotely detonating an “electronic bomb.” Franken Decl. ¶ 17, Sept. 16, 2013; Pavluk Decl. ¶ 9.
At the same time, on November 13, 2010, Frankentek Residential also remotely accessed and disabled the electronic home system at the New Jersey Property. Buerger Decl. ¶ 12. On or around November 17, 2010, Frankentek Residential reactivated the electronic home system at the New Jersey Property. On January 7, 2011, Reid Buerger discovered that Frankentek Residential had again disabled the electronic system at the New Jersey Property. Id. ¶ 13. In contrast, Franken states that Frankentek Residential and its personnel ceased to have any physical or remote access to the New Jersey Property on November 18, 2010, and he denies ever personally having physical or remote access to the New Jersey Property. Franken Decl. ¶¶ 8, 13, Sept. 16, 2013.
Reid Buerger states that the Buergers never gave Frankentek Residential the authority to disable the electronic home systems at the Pennsylvania Property or New Jersey Property or to enter either Property, either directly or remotely, for that purpose. Buerger Decl. ¶ 15. In contrast, Franken states that Frankentek Residential and its personnel accessed the electronic home systems in the Pennsylvania Property and New Jersey Property in a manner consistent with its authority as the owner/installer/servicer/monitor of the systems. Franken Decl. ¶¶ 14, 15, Sept. 16, 2013.
On February 12, 2012, Frankentek Residential filed two suits in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Buergers—one related to the Pennsylvania Property and New Jersey Property6 and one related to the Bahamas Property.7 The following day, in the District of New Jersey, Frankentek Residential filed a third suit against the Buergers related exclusively to the New Jersey Property. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, that suit was subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.8
On May 14, 2012, the Buergers filed a motion to dismiss in both the Pennsylvania Property and New Jersey Property Suit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the New Jersey Property Suit originally filed in New Jersey. On December 5, 2012, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. On January 7, 2013, the Buergers filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims in each of the three actions.
On August 16, 2013, Frankentek filed a motion for partial summary judgment in each of the three cases. In the course of the briefing, the Buergers chose not to contest the motions for summary judgment on several counterclaims. In the Pennsylvania Property and New Jersey Property Suit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Buergers conceded that their invasion of privacy counterclaim with respect to the Pennsylvania Property was untimely. In the Bahamas Property Suit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Buergers did not contest the motions for summary judgment on their invasion of privacy, conversion, and trespass counterclaims. Buergers' Opp. Br. at 2 n. 2 & 3, ECF No. 62–1.
Finally, on April 22, 2014, in accordance with the agreement transferring the suit to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Frankentek Residential dismissed all of its claims against the Buergers in the New Jersey Property Suit originally filed in New Jersey with the exception of its claim for a violation of the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act. In response, the Buergers dismissed all of their counterclaims in the same suit.9
Summary judgment will be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law....” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). After the moving party has met its initial burden, the nonmoving party must then “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [every] element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). However, the nonmoving party may not “rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions” to support its claims. Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir.1982).
In essence, the inquiry at summary judgment is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The remaining counterclaims are as follows:
(1) Counterclaims asserted by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial