209 F. Supp. 3d 804
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Denise and Byron Godfrey allege Catania Engineering, DELCORA, and Upland Borough conspired to obtain an unlawful easement, install drainage/sewage infrastructure on their land for ~20+ years, and then concealed the conduct, damaging and resulting in condemnation of the property.
- Plaintiffs originally sued (Dec. 7, 2015) asserting First Amendment retaliation, fraud, and malicious prosecution; they later sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim and a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on jurisdictional, service, statute-of-limitations/repose, and failure-to-plead grounds; they also opposed amendment adding federal claims. The Court evaluated dismissal and futility together.
- Court found supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law fraud claim, directed plaintiffs to serve prior pleadings (or obtain waivers), and held the Due Process claim relates back to the timely original complaint.
- Court concluded plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded First Amendment retaliation (against Upland), fraud (against Catania and DELCORA) with Rule 9(b) particularity, and a § 1983 due-process conspiracy theory against all defendants including private-party Catania as a state actor surrogate.
- Court dismissed plaintiffs’ CWA claim as futile because a government consent decree covering DELCORA barred the citizen suit; dismissed fraud and malicious prosecution claims against Upland without prejudice because municipalities are immune from intentional torts under state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over fraud (12(b)(1)) | Fraud arises from same nucleus as federal claims; supplemental jurisdiction proper | Challenge jurisdiction over state-law fraud | Court retained supplemental jurisdiction; dismissed 12(b)(1) challenge |
| Service of process (12(b)(4)/(5)) | Amended Complaint was served; will correct service if needed | Insufficient process/service (original complaint not served) | Court ordered plaintiffs to serve original and Second Amended Complaint unless waiver obtained |
| Statute of limitations/repose for Due Process and fraud | Claims relate back; timely filed within 2-year limit | Claims time-barred (limitations began when easement discovered; repose applies to construction claims) | Claims not time-barred; relation back applies; repose inapplicable because alleged improvements were fraudulently authorized |
| Failure to state claims (12(b)(6)) — First Amendment retaliation, fraud, malicious prosecution, §1983 Due Process, CWA | Pleaded retaliation, detailed fraud with particularity, due-process conspiracy, and CWA violations | Insufficient factual/pleading specificity; Catania not a state actor; CWA barred by consent decree; Upland immune from intentional torts | Retained retaliation (Upland), fraud (Catania and DELCORA), and Due Process (all defendants). Dismissed fraud and malicious prosecution claims against Upland without prejudice. Denied amendment to add CWA claim (futile) |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., 594 F.3d 238 (3d Cir.) (supplemental jurisdiction discussion)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir.) (relation of amendment/futility standards to dismissal standards)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Lit. Agent Actions, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir.) (supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims)
- Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir.) (service issues and quashing service guidance)
- W. Run Student Hous. Assocs. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 712 F.3d 165 (3d Cir.) (effect of superseding amended complaint)
- Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107 (3d Cir.) (statute of repose interpretation for construction-related defendants)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S.) (private party liability when acting jointly with state actors under § 1983)
- Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (U.S.) (when private conduct is attributable to the state)
- Grp. Against Smog & Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango Inc., 810 F.3d 116 (3d Cir.) (CWA citizen-suit barred by government consent decree/diligent-prosecution bar)
- U.S. EPA v. City of Green Forest, Ark., 921 F.2d 1394 (8th Cir.) (preclusion of citizen suits by consent decrees)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S.) (standing requirements)
- Zenquis v. City of Phila., 861 F.Supp.2d 522 (E.D. Pa.) (private parties as willful participants with state actors under § 1983)