Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-3636 CivilJOHN CHARLES CLINE, LINDA M. CLINE, NElL RAY CLINE, LINDA S. CLINE, and CHEROKEE LINES, INC., Plaintiffs Vo GLEN MOORE TRANSPORT, INC., CENTRAL PA TRUCK SERVICE, INC., GLEN MOORE TRUCK SERVICE, and FERGUSON & FLYNN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 98-3636 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE OLER, J.* ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this { l[ aay of November, 1999, upon consideration of ! defendants' preliminary objections to plaintiffs' amended complaint in the form of a motion for a more specific pleading, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, defendants' preliminary objections are denied. BY THE COURT, ~'ley Ole ,~.,-J. (,,/ ' Steven R. Williams, Esq. 508 North Second Street P. O. Box 845 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845 Attorney for Plaintiffs Richard P. Mislitsky, Esq. 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants :rc * Bayley, J., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this case. JOHN CHARLES CLINE, LINDA M. CLINE, NEIL RAY CLINE, LINDA S. CLINE, and CHEROKEE LINES, INC., Plaintiffs GLEN MOORE TRANSPORT, INC., CENTRAL PA TRUCK SERVICE, INC., GLEN MOORE TRUCK SERVICE, and FERGUSON & FLYNN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 98-3636 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE OLER, OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J., November 19, 1999. In this civil action plaintiffs have sued several defendants for breach of lease, breach of contract, promissory estoppel and property damage. The action arises out of the defendants' alleged breach of duties with respect to certain property occupied by them and subject to a commercial lease and their alleged infliction of physical damage upon the property. ~ Bayley, J., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this case. For disposition at this time are preliminary objections to plaintifig' amended complaint filed by defendants Glen Moore Transport, Inc., Central Pennsylvania Truck Service, Inc., and Glen Moore Truck Service.2 The preliminary objections are in the form of a motion for a more specific complaint.3 The premise of the preliminary objections is that the amended complaint (1) fails to distinguish between the defendants with respect to the activities complained of and (2) fails to identify the individuals acting on behalf of the defendants. The matter was submitted on briefs at the argument court held on October 13, 1999. For the reasons stated in this opinion, defendants' preliminary objections will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint have been wefi summarized in plaintiffs' brief as follows: ... Plaintiffs, Cline (herein "Cline") are the owners of real estate located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania (the "Property"). (Amended Complaint, paragraphs 1, 2, 16). On or about July 8, 1987, Plaintiff, Cherokee Lines, Inc. (herein, "Cherokee"), entered into a lease with Clines for the Property (herein, the "Lease.") (Amended Complaint, paragraphs 3, 18). In June 1989, Cherokee, with the consent of the Clines, assigned the Lease to Ferguson & Flynn Enterprises (herein, "F&F") (Amended Complaint, paragraphs 20-22). 2 The remaining defendant, Ferguson & Flynn Enterprises, Inc., is said to be a debtor in bankruptcy and therefore the beneficiary of an automatic stay in this proceeding. Plaintiffs' amended complaint, paragraphs 9-10. 3 Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, paragraphs 1-9. 2 Contemporaneously with the assignment, F&F allowed Defendants [Glen Moore Transport, Inc., Central PA Truck Service, Inc., and Glen Moore Truck Service, referred to in the amended complaint as the "Glen Moore Defendants"] to enter into and take possession of the Property (Amended Complaint, paragraph 23). Plaintiffs have alleged that in connection therewith, F&F assigned to Defendants all of its rights, title and interest in and to the Lease (Amended Complaint, paragraph 24), sublet the Property to Defendants (Amended Complaint, paragraph 26), or otherwise entered into an agreement with Defendants whereby Defendants agreed to take over and be responsible for the Lease (Amended Complaint, paragraph 25). As of and subsequent to June 1989, Defendants performed the obligations of the tenant under the Lease, including, occupying the Property (Paragraphs 23 and 25), paying the rents to Plaintiffs, including the rent escalations required under the Lease (Amended Complaint, paragraphs 30, 42, 47), paying real estate taxes associated with the Property (Amended Complaint, paragraph 31), insuring the Property (Amended Complaint, paragraph 32), and registering underground storage tanks with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Amended Complaint, paragraphs 33 and 34) and paying the annual assessments related thereto (Amended Complaint, paragraph 34). Defendants vacated the Property on or about June 30, 1996 (Amended Complaint, Paragraph 49). Plaintiffs were unable, however, to re-rent the Property prior to the expiration of the Lease (i.e., July 31, 1998). Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages from Defendants for lost rent, expenses incurred in attempting to re-rent the Property, repairs to the Property after Defendants vacated, and costs incurred for maintaining the Property during the balance of the Lease term, including, taxes and insurance. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states causes of action for Breach of Lease, Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel and Damages to the Property.4 In support of their preliminary objections in the tbrm of a motion for a more specific complaint, defendants argue that plaintiffs' use of the collective term "Glen Moore Defendants" in the amended complaint improperly obscures the distinction between the activities of the several entities and that plaintiffs' failure to specify the persons who were acting on behalf of the corporate defendants is similarly defective for lack of precision.5 Plaintiffs respond that the activities complained of were in fact engaged in by each of the defendants, and that no authority exists for the proposition that actors on behalf of business entities must be identified in pleadings in these circumstances.6 DISCUSSION "The question to be decided when a preliminary objection in the form of a motion for more specific pleading is interposed ... is whether [the] pleading is sufficiently clear to enable an opposing party to prepare a response .... " 2 4 Brief of Plaintiffs, John Charles Cline, Linda M. Cline, Neil Ray Cline, Linda S. Cline, and Cherokee Lines, Inc., in Opposition to Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Glen Moore Transport, Inc., Central PA Truck Service, Inc., and Glen Moore Truck Service, to Amended Complaint, at 2-3. 5 Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, at 2. 6 Brief of Plaintiffs, John Charles Cline, Linda M. Cline, Neil Ray Cline, Linda S. Cline, and Cherokee Lines, Inc., in Opposition to Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Glen Moore Transport, Inc., Central PA Truck Service, Inc., and Glen Moore Truck Service to Amended Complaint, at 5-7. 4 Goodrich-Amram 2d §1017(b):21, at 265 (1991). A motion for a more specific pleading will be denied when "the objecting party may be presumed to have at least as much information as does the pleader." 5 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d §25:60, at 170 (1993); see Clark v. General Mills, Inc., 48 Cumberland L.J. 124 (1999). In addition, a preliminary objection based on lack of particularity may, in certain cases, be denied on the ground that discovery is a more appropriate vehicle to resolve the matter. See 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d §1017(b):24, at 268 (1991). In the present case, in view of plaintiffs' contention that the activities of the "Glen Moore Defendants" were engaged in collectively, defendants' preliminary objection based upon a failure of plaintiffs to distinguish between defendants' activities cannot be sustained. With respect to defendants' position tha~ identification of the individuals acting on behalf of the defendant business entities was a prerequisite to sufficient specificity in the amended complaint, the court is of the view that plaintiffs' pleading is adequately specific to enable defendants to prepare a response. The identities of defendants' agents and employees and their conduct of business would seem to be matters as to which defendants would have as much knowledge as plaintiffs; in addition, particulars in the form of individual identifications can be properly relegated to the discovery process without prejudice to defendants in the court's opinion. For the foregoing reasons, the following order of court will be entered: 5 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 1999, upon consideration of defendants' preliminary objections to plaintiffs' amended complaint in the form of a motion for a more specific pleading, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, defendants' preliminary objections are denied. BY THE COURT, Steven R. Williams, Esq. 508 North Second Street P. O. Box 845 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845 Attorney for Plaintiffs Richard P. Mislitsky, Esq. 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants :rc s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.