Dunbar v. Rivello
34 Pa. D. & C.5th 87
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- Dunbar and Lilac Meadows sought a permanent injunction against Rivello for trespass, harassment, and intimidation related to the Lilac Meadows Edith Street project.
- Rivello repeatedly visited the Edith Street site, photographed workers, and engaged in confrontations based on objections to the development.
- Prior incidents included a 2010 trespass episode, police warnings, a 2011 defiant trespass citation, and civil actions including a defamation suit and a prior slander action that was dismissed.
- After filing the present petition in June 2013, three evidentiary hearings were held; Dunbar and Lilac Meadows withdrew a portion of their requests regarding communication about the project.
- The court conducted credibility determinations as the factfinder and found evidence credible that Rivello harassed and intimidated the plaintiffs and their workers.
- The court ultimately granted some injunctive relief while denying broader prohibitions against contact with tenants, prospective tenants, or photographers, tailoring relief to specific statutory bases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a right to a permanent injunction enjoining entry to property | Dunbar/Lilac Meadows assert ongoing trespass and need broad relief. | Rivello contends no continuing irreparable harm or need for broad ban. | Yes; narrowly enjoin entry except by tenant invitation. |
| Whether Rivello may be enjoined from entering property for any reason | Broad prohibition protects property rights from repeated trespass. | Tenant social invites could permit entry; blanket ban is overbroad. | Enjoin Rivello from entering Edith Street property except when invited by a Lilac Meadows’ tenant. |
| Whether Rivello can be barred from contacting plaintiffs and their employees | Contacts are harassing and threaten safety; need broad prohibition. | Blanket ban on all contact is vague and infringes First Amendment rights. | Enjoin contact only to the extent it constitutes terroristic threats, harassment, or stalking. |
| Whether Rivello can be enjoined from stalking or photographing plaintiffs and employees | Stalking/photography harms privacy and safety; relief requested. | Photography occurred from public view; invasion of privacy not established. | Rivello barred from stalking Dunbar and his employees; photography enjoined only if invasion of privacy is shown; broader photography ban denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward Township v. Zerbe, 6 A.3d 651 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (injunction standards and caution in granting relief)
- Big Bass Lake Community Association v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (narrow tailoring of injunction; irreparable harm considerations)
- Apple Storage Co. v. Consumer’s Education and Protective Association, 441 Pa. 309 (1971) (injunctions should be definite and precise in terms)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, USA, 959 A.2d 352 (Pa. Super. 2008) (overbreadth concerns with blanket contact prohibitions; First Amendment considerations)
- Sprankle v. Burns, 450 Pa. Super. 319 (1996) (trespass and property rights; authority to grant injunctive relief)