Godfrey v. Upland Borough
246 F. Supp. 3d 1078
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Denise and Byron Godfrey own a Upland Borough home that they allege lost all value after municipal/sewer infrastructure (installed under a 1991 easement) caused repeated sewage flooding.
- Plaintiffs contend the 1991 easement was procured by fraud (forged signature) and that DELCORA and Upland Borough concealed responsibility while blaming Plaintiffs’ private lateral, causing ongoing damage and expenses.
- Mrs. Godfrey was charged under a borough ordinance for failing to obtain a Certificate of Lateral; she was later found not guilty and Plaintiffs allege the charges were retaliatory and baseless.
- Plaintiffs pleaded claims for First Amendment retaliation (against Upland Borough), fraud (against multiple defendants), malicious prosecution (against Upland individuals), a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, and a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (against DELCORA).
- Court previously dismissed some claims (fraud and malicious prosecution as to the municipality; CWA claim as barred by a consent decree) and ordered a Second Amended Complaint; parties now litigate motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) | Complaint is sufficiently specific; ad damnum clauses identify defendants per claim | Complaint is vague about which defendants are liable for each claim | Denied — pleading is not so vague; ad damnum clauses suffice; Third Amended Complaint will govern who must respond |
| Fraud claims against Upland individual defendants (and Rule 9(b) particularity) | Alleged two frauds: (1) forged 1991 easement; (2) post-1991 misrepresentations blaming Plaintiffs’ lateral causing reliance and expense | Individual Upland defendants argue they weren’t involved in obtaining the 1991 easement; many allegations lack particularity as to specific individuals | Fraud claim survives as to some individuals (e.g., plumber Kennedy pleaded with particularity). Fraud dismissed without prejudice for Ferguson, Mitchell, Hunter for lack of detail; claim against O’Connor withdrawn by Plaintiffs |
| Relation back to add individual DELCORA employees / immunity under Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act | Plaintiffs seek to add three DELCORA employees; relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) because original claims arose from same conduct and defendants had notice; Tort Claims Act exception applies if claims allege actual fraud/willful misconduct | DELCORA argues Pennsylvania law bars relation back and municipal immunity bars fraud claims against employees | Relation back allowed under Rule 15(c)(1)(C): federal relation-back rules apply; plaintiffs’ amendment not futile because the Tort Claims Act exception for intentional torts (actual fraud/willful misconduct) applies at this stage |
| Clean Water Act citizen-suit (diligent-prosecution bar / consent decree) | Plaintiffs argue consent decree does not fully address their injury and may be inadequate or too slow | DELCORA argues the EPA/PADEP consent decree requiring DELCORA to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows evidences diligent prosecution and bars citizen suit under CWA §1365(b)(1)(B) | Dismissed with prejudice — the consent decree covers the same violations (SSOs and building/private-property backups) and constitutes diligent prosecution, barring Plaintiffs’ CWA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (pleading and inference standards)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (relation-back rule interpretation under Rule 15)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention principles)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., 484 U.S. 49 (scope of citizen suits and compliance/diligent-prosecution principles)
- Group Against Smog & Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango Inc., 810 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. discussion of diligent-prosecution bar and consent decrees)