HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-4407 civilJUTTA A. GILSTRAP, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V.
: NO. 97-4407 CIVIL TERM
J. BARRY CAMMARATA and :
AMP, INC., :
Defendants :
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
Before HOFFER, P.J. and OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, January 16, 1998, after careful consideration, this Court finds
that Defendant AMP's Preliminary Objection, in the nature of a demurrer, is
granted. All of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, AMP Incorporated, are hereby
dismissed.
By the Court,
William C. Vohs, Esquire "[~//' - !
11 West Pomfret Street, Suite 2
Carlisle, PA 17013
For the Plaintiff
Vincent Candiello, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
One Commerce Square
417 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1904
For the Defendant
JUTTA A. GILSTRAP, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V, :
: NO. 97-4407 CIVIL TERM
J. BARRY CAMMARATA and :
AMP INC., :
Defendants :
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
Before HOFFER, P.J. and OLER, J.
OPINION
HOFFER, P.J.:
In this opinion, we address Plaintiff's Preliminary Objection, under Pa. R. Civ.
P. 1028(a)(4), in the nature of a demurrer, claiming that Plaintiff's claim against
Defendant AMP is legally insufficient.~ On August 13, 1997, Plaintiff filed a
complaint containing counts against J. Barry Cammarata and AMP Incorporated.
This opinion deals only with Plaintiff's claims against AMP. The allegations are
based on the following factual scenario: Plaintiff and her fiance, Cammarata, lived
in California. In December of 1994, Plaintiff and Cammarata relocated to
Pennsylvania after Cammarata had accepted a position with AMP. Cammarata
was entitled to a relocation benefit from AMP. Cammarata moved both his and
Plaintiff's personal property to Pennsylvania, in anticipation of their marriage, and
~Defendant has brought forth two preliminary objections. However, based
upon the action we are taking today, there is no need to address Defendant's first
preliminary objection concerning lack of specificity in Plaintiff's complaint.
NO. 97-4407 CIVIL TERM
expensed the cost to AMP. AMP reimbursed Cammarata for the moving costs.
The relationship between Cammarata and Plaintiff ended in 1996, before the
marriage had occurred. Plaintiff decided to return to Califomia. Plaintiff made a
demand upon AMP to pay to have her personal property professionally packed and
shipped to her in California. AMP refused. This lawsuit ensued.
Discussion
In order for a binding contract to exist, both parties must have manifested
an intent to be bound by the terms of an agreement, the terms must have been
sufficiently definite, and consideration must have been given. Johnston the Florist
v. TEDCO Const. Corp., 441 Pa. Super. 281,291,657 A.2d 511,516 (1995). The
elements of unjust enrichment are: (1) benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff;
(2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention
of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for
defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value. Schenck v. K.E. David,
Ltd., 446 Pa. Super. 94, 97, 666 A.2d 327, 328 (1995). "Where unjust enrichment
is found, the law implies a contract, referred to as either a quasi contract or a
contract implied in law, which requires that the defendant pay to plaintiff the value
of the benefit conferred." Schenck at 98, 666 A.2d at 328-29.
In the case at bar, Plaintiff has alleged no facts which can allow this Court
NO. 97-4407 CIVIL TERM
to conclude that a contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant AMP. Neither
Plaintiff nor AMP manifested an intent to be bound by terms of an agreement
because no agreement existed between the two parties. Plaintiff gave no benefit
to AMP. AMP did not recognize that Plaintiff had conferred a benefit upon it.
Without AMP's receipt of a benefit, Plaintiff can not claim unjust enrichment. No
contract, implied or otherwise, existed between Plaintiff and AMP.
"A demurrer can only be sustained where the complaint is clearly insufficient
to establish the pleader's right to relief." Lumax Industries, Inc. v. Aultman, 543
Pa. 38, 41,669 A.2d 893, 894-95 (1995). The legal sufficiency of a claim must be
tested by admitting as true all well-pleaded, material, relevant facts and all fairly
deducible inferences from those facts. Lumax at 41,669 A.2d at 895.
Since the sustaining of a demurrer results in a denial of.
the pleader's claim or a dismissal of his suit, a
preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should
be sustained only in cases that clearly and without a
doubt fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Id.
Accepting as true all facts and all inferences drawn from those facts which
Plaintiff has pled, no contract or quasi contract existed between Plaintiff and
Defendant AMP. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim against AMP is legally insufficient and
Defendant AMP's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer is granted.
3