G. Chinniah v. N. Forrester
1111 C.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 7, 2022Background
- In May 2012 appellant Gnana Chinniah leased a residential unit to Nayra Forrester and separately entered a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the Cumberland County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Housing Authority) for rent subsidies.
- In January–April 2018 Housing Authority inspector Steven Young reported a cockroach infestation after a pipe repair; the Housing Authority warned Chinniah and then terminated HAP payments effective April 30, 2018 for failure to remediate.
- Chinniah sued Forrester, the Housing Authority, and individual employees (Young and Becky Shull) alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, conspiracy, fraud, retaliation, interference with contractual relations, and defamation and sought damages and eviction of Forrester.
- The Housing Authority and Forrester filed multiple preliminary objections (procedural and demurrers). The trial court sustained the Housing Authority’s objections (Jan. 23, 2019) and later sustained Forrester’s objections and dismissed the amended complaint as to her (Oct. 5, 2020).
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed, primarily on waiver grounds (failure to preserve many issues in the Rule 1925(b) statement and statement of questions involved) and because, as a matter of law, the pleaded facts did not support recovery against the Housing Authority or individually named employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to apply the correct standard of review for preliminary objections (i.e., accept well‑pleaded facts as true) | Chinniah: court ignored his verified allegations and resolved factual disputes against him rather than accepting all well‑pleaded facts as true. | Defendants: preliminary objections were properly sustained because the claims were legally insufficient and some factual contentions were conclusory. | Held: Issue waived by failure to preserve in Rule 1925(b) and statement of questions; in any event court applied demurrer standards and dismissal was proper. |
| Breach of contract claim against Housing Authority for withholding HAP payment | Chinniah: Housing Authority breached HAP and owed co‑payments; alleged the infestation was fabricated so termination was wrongful. | Housing Authority: HAP contract permits inspections and withholding payments if unit fails Housing Quality Standards; no contractual basis to hold Authority liable. | Held: Trial court correctly dismissed contractual claim as legally insufficient given HAP terms; appellant also waived some challenges. |
| Tort claims (conspiracy, retaliation, defamation, interference, breach of implied covenant of good faith) | Chinniah: alleged conspiracy and retaliatory conduct tied to prior federal litigation and discrimination; claimed intentional torts injured his business and reputation. | Defendants: tort claims are barred by the gist‑of‑the‑action doctrine or otherwise insufficiently pleaded; many allegations are conclusory and lack required specificity. | Held: Trial court properly sustained preliminary objections — tort claims were legally insufficient and inadequately pleaded; dismissal affirmed. |
| Procedural preservation: whether trial court improperly allowed renewed preliminary objections after ordering an answer; adequacy of appellant’s appellate preservation | Chinniah: trial court’s January 23, 2019 order required Forrester to answer and thus renewing objections violated that order; appellant preserved issues in Rule 1925(b). | Defendants: appellant failed to preserve most issues by not including them in the statement of questions involved and Rule 1925(b) statement; appellate rules require strict compliance. | Held: Commonwealth Court rejected many arguments as waived under Rule 1925(b) and Rule 2116; affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) (an appeal from a final order subsumes review of prior non‑final orders under Pa.R.A.P. 341)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (affirming dismissal where appellant failed to preserve claims in Rule 1925(b) statement)
- Jones v. City of Philadelphia, 893 A.2d 837 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard of review for preliminary objections/demurrer)
- Neely v. Department of Corrections, 838 A.2d 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (demurrer standard: plaintiff must state a cause of action that, if proved, would entitle relief)
- Lennitt v. Department of Corrections, 964 A.2d 37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (preliminary objections deemed to admit all well‑pleaded material facts)