Riley v. Timmons Constr.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-286 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Parties | HARRISON LEE RILEY, Plaintiff, v. TIMMONS CONSTRUCTION LLC, RYAN TIMMONS and PANCHO TIMMONS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
In this action, Plaintiff Harrison Lee Riley (“Plaintiff”) brings claims under Pennsylvania law arising out of a series of allegedly failed renovation projects undertaken by Defendants Timmons Construction LLC (“Timmons Construction”), Ryan Timmons and Pancho Timmons. ECF No. 21.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Join a Party, or Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement filed by Defendant Pancho Timmons (“Motion to Dismiss”). ECF No. 25. Also before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Counts II-VI of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendants Timmons Construction and Ryan Timmons (“Motion to Dismiss”). ECF No. 23. For the following reasons, the Motions to Dismiss are granted in part and denied in part.[1]
Plaintiff is the sole member of Glass Beach Ventures, LLC (“Glass Beach”). ECF No. 21 ¶ 2. Glass Beach owns three residential investment properties located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“Properties”), which are in the process of renovation for rent or resale. Id.
Ryan Timmons owns and manages Timmons Construction, a renovation construction company. Id. ¶¶ 4-6. His brother, Pancho Timmons, is an employee or agent of Timmons Construction and managed Timmons Construction's projects in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Id. ¶¶ 7-9.
Plaintiff discussed renovations to be performed on the Properties with Timmons Constructions in or around November 2019. Id. ¶ 12. Timmons Constructions provided separate statements of work with proposed pricing for each of the Properties (“Statements of Work”). Id. ¶ 19. During those discussions, Defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented that Timmons Construction “was an established full-service renovation construction company sufficiently experienced, knowledgeable, skilled, and capitalized to properly staff, manage, and perform renovation of residential investment properties in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.
Based on these alleged misrepresentations, Plaintiff entered into three oral contracts with Timmons Construction, in which Timmons Construction agreed to perform the work set forth in the Statements of Work for the prices set forth in them (“Contracts”). Id. ¶¶ 14, 20. He also made “sizable” down payments for work to begin. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff later agreed to increase the scope of work and cost through three oral change orders. Id. ¶¶ 42, 45 and 48; ECF No. 21-2 at 2.
From the beginning, Timmons Construction allegedly mismanaged the projects by, among other things, failing to obtain necessary permits, failing to satisfy the time frames set forth in the Statement of Work (even when accounting for Governor Wolf's shutdown order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic), failing to properly track the use of funds paid by Plaintiff, and misappropriating those funds. ECF No. 21 ¶ 23.
Between June and September 2020, Timmons Construction “acknowledged shortcomings in its performance, ” and it replaced Pancho Timmons as the project manager. Id. ¶ 24. Defendants falsely claimed their “shortcomings” were due to complications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and those issues could be resolved with increased cashflow. Id. ¶ 26. At some point, Defendants required Plaintiff to pay $15, 000 a week to continue their work. Id. ¶ 15.
During the projects, Plaintiff claims that he continued to make payments or to modify the payment plans based on Defendants' misrepresentations that “certain work was completed, that such payments were due or otherwise necessary for work to continue, and that work was progressing at each of the Properties.” Id. ¶¶ 22, 27, 31 and 33. Although Defendants claimed to require the funds for his projects, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intended to use the funds for personal expenditures, to support other failing projects, or for use on something other than funding renovations on the Properties. Id. ¶¶ 18, 30.
In November 2020, Timmons Construction informed Plaintiff that it would be unable to complete the projects and suggested that Plaintiff hire a new contractor to do so. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff paid Timmons Construction $437, 000 to complete the renovations. Id. ¶ 32. The value of the work performed by Timmons Constructions on the Properties is $135, 500 or less. Id. ¶ 35. The estimated cost to complete the unfinished work and correct various deficiencies in the existing work product exceeds the prices set forth in the Statements of Work by over $140, 000. Id. ¶ 37.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts these claims: Count I: Breach of Contract; Count II: Unjust Enrichment; Count III: Conversion; Count IV: Fraud/Fraudulent Inducement/Negligent Misrepresentation; Count V: Civil Conspiracy; Count VI: Piercing the Corporate Veil. Plaintiff asserts Count I only against Timmons Construction. He asserts Counts II through VI against all Defendants.
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on March 2, 2021. ECF No. 1. Defendant Pancho Timmons answered the Complaint. ECF No. 6.
The parties consented to Plaintiff filing an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint on June 24, 2021. ECF No. 21.
On July 15, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Motions to Dismiss and Briefs in Support. ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26. Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss on August 13, 2021. ECF No. 34. Defendants Ryan Timmons and Timmons Construction then filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, in which Pancho Timmons joined. ECF Nos. 36 and 37.
The Motions to Dismiss are now ripe for consideration.
In assessing the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court, however, need not accept bald assertions or inferences drawn by the plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. See Cal. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is properly dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) where it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” id. at 570, or where the factual content does not allow the court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) ().
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) permits a party to “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Rule 12(e) is part of the “district court's case-management arsenal, ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 593 n. 13, that, along with the rest of Rule 12 and Rule 8, serves “to frame and govern [the] court's assessment of the quality of a pleading.” Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Cloud, No. 08-1200, 2008 WL 3895895, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2008). “A motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) ‘is directed to the rare case where because of the vagueness or ambiguity of the pleading the answering party will not be able to frame a responsive pleading.'” Id. (quoting Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publ'n, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1967)).
“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.'” Country Classics at Morgan Hill Homeowners' Ass'n v. Country Classics at Morgan Hill, LLC, 780 F.Supp.2d 367, 371 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (quoting Hughes v. Smith, No. 03-cv-5035, 2005 WL 435226, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2005)). As a result, such a motion generally 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.'” Synagro-WWT, Inc. v. Rush Twp., 204 F.Supp.2d 827, 849 (M.D. Pa. 2002).
In Count I, Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim against Timmons Construction. In support of his Motion to Dismiss Pancho Timmons argues that Plaintiff has alleged the existence of three oral contracts and change orders that were orally agreed to, but he does not sufficiently plead facts to establish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial