Country Classics at Morgan Hill Homeowners' Ass'n v. Country Classics at Morgan Hill, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45708
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- CCMH is the Declarant and developer of the Country Classics at Morgan Hill Condominium Development and remains a unit owner.
- The Association manages the Development via the Declaration, including repair of defects at its own expense, notably the retaining wall, driveways, Breezeways, drainage, landscaping, and fire suppression systems.
- The Association alleges eight specific breaches of the Declaration related to maintenance and design/construction flaws.
- CCMH removed the case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction; the Association seeks compensatory, attorney’s fees, and treble damages.
- CCMH moves to dismiss Count II (unjust enrichment) and Count III (UTPCPL) and to require a more definite statement for Count I.
- The court addresses Rule 12(b)(6) standards, then analyzes each count and related theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I should be divided into separate counts | Association identifies eight separate breach claims under Count I. | Count I should be divided to separate actual breaches for clarity. | Denied; Count I can be understood and answered as pleaded. |
| Whether Count II's unconscionability theory should survive | Declaration may be unconscionable under Pennsylvania law. | Unconscionability doctrine does not apply here or is inadequately pled. | Granted in part; unconscionability theory dismissed. |
| Whether Count II's unjust enrichment theory survives | Defendant benefited from the retaining wall and related maintenance. | No unjust enrichment shown because the benefit is not conferred to CCMH directly. | Denied as to unjust enrichment; plausible theory preserved. |
| Whether Count III (UTPCPL) survives standing requirements | Association may sue on behalf of unit owners under UTPCPL. | Association lacks purchaser standing to sue under UTPCPL. | Granted; UTPCPL claim dismissed for lack of purchaser standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. (U.S. 2009) (antiplausibility standard clarifies Twombly)
- Valley Forge Towers South Condo. v. Ron-Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 393 Pa. Super. 339 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (association standing under UTPCPL limitations)
- Katz v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 972 F.2d 53 (3d Cir. 1992) (standing and third-party purchaser considerations in UTPCPL)
- Bayne v. Smith, 965 A.2d 265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (adhesion contract concepts in Pennsylvania)