Frisell v. Grier Sch. & Emily Zientek
| Decision Date | 29 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 3:14-13 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | MONA FRISELL and PETRA FRISELL, Plaintiffs, v. THE GRIER SCHOOL and EMILY ZIENTEK, Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises from the sale of a horse named Aria, which Plaintiffs contend was lame. Plaintiffs have asserted a number of claims against Defendants, attempting to recover their alleged losses from the transaction involving the sale of the horse. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) the complaint on various grounds. Specifically, Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) failure to join a necessary party, and (3) failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, because Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy.
Plaintiffs initiated this action attempting to recover damages arising from their purchase of a show jumping horse, which they contend was lame. Plaintiffs allege thefollowing facts in their complaint, which the Court will accept as true for the sole purpose of deciding the pending motion to dismiss.
Eva Frissel was a member of the Grier School Varsity Show Jumping Team. . On February 5, 2010, Eva's mother and grandmother—the Plaintiffs in this case—purchased an eight-year-old Oldenburg Mare, named Aria, for Eva to use for show jumping. (Id. ¶ 6). Plaintiffs purchased the horse "from Defendant Zientek's friend Nancy Steriett on behalf of owner Elizabeth Hammerman." (Id. ¶ 6). The purchase price for the horse at the time of the February 5, 2010, transaction was $20,000. (Id. ¶ 38). The insurance value of the horse was $20,000 based on the assumption that the horse was sound. (Id. ¶ 38).
Defendant Zientek is the Grier School Riding Director and Trainer. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7). Plaintiffs accepted Defendant Zientek's offer to assist them in purchasing the horse. (Id. ¶ 7). Defendant Zientek counseled Plaintiffs to purchase Aria as the appropriate horse for Eva. (Id. ¶ 7). Defendant Zientek received a financial commission for brokering the sale, a fact that Defendants did not disclose to Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 8). Plaintiffs relied on Defendant Zientek's knowledge, experience, and advice regarding the proper type of horse that Eva should use in pursuing her aspirations regarding varsity show jumping. (Id. ¶ 9). Defendant Zientek assured Plaintiffs that Aria was an appropriate horse for Eva's use, given the horse's training, age, breed, and future value as a broodmare. (Id. ¶ 11).
Prior to the purchase of the horse, Defendant Zientek advised Plaintiffs to submit Aria to a lengthy veterinary exam with x-rays of the horse's front and back legs. (Id. ¶ 13).Defendant Zientek scheduled and attended the pre-purchase veterinary examination of Aria at the Center Equine Practice on January 20, 2010, on behalf of Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14). Thereafter, Plaintiffs requested the results of the pre-purchase examination on several occasions from Defendant Zientek. (Id. ¶ 15). Defendant Zientek never provided Plaintiffs with the written results of the examination, but nevertheless assured them that the horse had passed "with flying colors." (Id. ¶ 15). Plaintiffs first learned the results of the pre-purchase examination on February 20, 2013, at which time they learned that the horse was lame. (Id. ¶ 15).
Defendant Zientek received the written pre-purchase examination report on January 20, 2010. (Id. ¶ 16). The examining veterinarian stated in the report, "discussed straight hock confirmation and appearance indicates likely degenerative change in hocks." (Id. ¶ 16). Despite Defendant Zientek's statement to Plaintiffs that x-rays were "a must for jumping horses," the report stated that radiographs were not requested. (Id. ¶ 17). Defendant Zientek told the examining veterinarian, Dr. Jessica Hoffman, that the owner had stated that x-rays were not required. (Id. ¶ 20). Plaintiffs received a bill from Defendant Grier School for the pre-purchase examination, which included charges for x-rays, thus leading Plaintiffs to believe that x-rays had been taken. (Id. ¶ 18). Defendant Zientek represented to Plaintiffs that Aria had a clean bill of health with no previous history of problems. (Id. ¶ 19).
After purchasing the horse, Plaintiffs executed an agreement with Defendant Grier School—"Grier School Stables Free Lease Agreement"—for the boarding and care of Plaintiffs' horse. (Id. ¶ 21). At Defendant Zientek's direction, Aria participated in showjumping events with Eva as the rider, despite Aria's actual physical condition, which Defendant knew or had reason to know was never communicated to Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 22). At the time of purchase, Aria was suffering from degenerative changes in its hocks and was becoming increasingly lame and unsuitable for its intended purpose, that of show jumping. (Id. ¶ 23). However, Eva used the horse in show jumping from February 2010 through September 2011. (Id. ¶ 24).
In September 2011, Plaintiffs decided to sell Aria. (Id. ¶ 25). Defendant Zientek then arranged for a veterinary examination of the horse on September 28, 2011, by the Center Equine Practice. (Id. ¶ 26). The results of this examination stated that the horse suffered from chronic right foot lameness since the summer. (Id. ¶ 26). The examining veterinarian arranged to take x-rays of the horse on October 7, 2011, and thereafter diagnosed Aria as suffering from navicular degeneration and recommended that the horse's activity level be limited to light work on flat ground. (Id. ¶ 26). Defendant Zientek never informed Plaintiffs of the September 28 and October 7, 2011, veterinary examination results, and Plaintiffs did not learn of the horse's true physical condition until February 20, 2013. (Id. ¶ 27). At some point in time, Plaintiffs requested and received medical records concerning treatment and evaluation of the horse from Center Equine Practice. (Id. ¶ 28). Defendant Zientek continued to use the horse in horse shows on behalf of and for the benefit of the Grier School during the summer of 2011. (Id. ¶ 30).
In January 2013, Plaintiffs advised Defendant Zientek that they intended to move the horse to Florida to be examined by a potential buyer. (Id. ¶ 31). That same month, Aria was transported to the Windsor Equestrian Center in Okeechobee, Florida and cameunder the care of a trainer named Arno Mares. (Id. ¶ 33). Mr. Mares requested that Defendants provide him with Aria's medical records from the Center Equine Practice, but Defendants failed to respond to his request. (Id. ¶ 33). Mr. Mares then informed Plaintiffs that Aria had been lame upon arrival at Windsor Equestrian Center. (Id. ¶ 33).
Plaintiffs' insurance company requested documentation regarding the horse's health, but Defendants never provided the requested medical documentation to the insurance agent. (Id. ¶¶ 34-36). Upon the horse's arrival in Florida, veterinarians examined Aria on January 21, January 31, February 7, and February 12, 2013. (Id. ¶ 37). Aria was diagnosed with "severe navicular disease and the prognosis for the horse was poor for performance." (Id. ¶ 37). The examining veterinarian recommended that the horse not be ridden and that "pasture usage is the best outcome to be expected." (Id. ¶ 37).
Plaintiffs filed a five-count complaint against Defendants on January 15, 2014, asserting Pennsylvania common law tort claims. In Count I, Plaintiffs assert a claim against Defendant Zientek for intentional misrepresentation. (Id. ¶¶ 41-43). In Count II, Plaintiffs assert a claim against both Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. (Id. ¶¶ 44-47). In Count III, Plaintiffs assert a claim against Defendant Grier School for negligent supervision. (Id. ¶¶ 48-54). In Count IV, Plaintiffs assert a claim against Defendant Grier School for respondeat superior. (Id. ¶¶ 55-56). In Count V, Plaintiffs assert a claim against Defendant Zientek for professional negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 57-61).
Defendants then filed the instant motion, asking the Court to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. (ECF No. 7). First, Defendants argue that this Court lackssubject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have not alleged the requisite jurisdictional amount to invoke the Court's diversity jurisdiction. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13). Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to join a necessary party by failing to name the seller of the allegedly lame horse as a defendant. (Id. ¶ 14). Third, Defendants assert that each of Plaintiffs' five counts in the complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Id. ¶¶ 15-19). The parties have briefed the Court on the issues raised (see ECF Nos. 8, 10, 14), and this matter is now ripe for adjudication.
Defendants first argue that the complaint should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs attempt to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendants concede that diversity of citizenship is present, because—as alleged in the complaint—both Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Florida while both Defendants are citizens of the State of Pennsylvania. . However, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to establish the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs a challenge concerning a court's subject matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss addresses "the very power [of the court] to hear the case." Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 514 F. Supp. 2d 753, 759 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting Mortensen v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)). "As the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial