Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-5349 Civil (2)JOSEPH J. CURRERI, JR., TRADING AS THE CURRERI REAL ESTATE COMPANY, Plaintiff Vo DAVID E. DYSON, JAMES P. STEPHENS, JR., JOHN H. RHODES, MICHAEL K. LAU, JEFFREY D.BILLMAN AND RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., TRADING AS CAPITOL VIEW ASSOCIATES A PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AND DAVID E. DYSON, JAMES P. STEPHENS, JR., JOHN H. RHODES, HARLIN J. WALL, MICHAEL K. LAU AND JEFFREY D. BILLMAN, TRADING AS THE CHERRINGTON GROUP, A PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND CO! !NTY, PENNSYLVANIA · CIVIL ACTION - LAW · NO. 96-5349 CIVIL TERM 1996 IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ.* ORDER OF COURT d AND NOW, this~d~'ay of December, 1999, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Plaintiff's motion is granted. * Guido, J., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this case. Timothy Anstine, Esq. 100 Pine Street, Suite 510 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendants :rc BY THE COURT, J. g4esleyOler, . . * Guido, J., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this case. JOSEPH J. CURRERI, JR., TRADING AS THE CURRERI REAL ESTATE COMPANY, Plaintiff Vo DAVID E. DYSON, JAMES P. STEPHENS, JR., JOHN H. RHODES, MICHAEL K. LAU, JEFFREY D.BILLMAN AND RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., TRADING AS CAPITOL VIEW ASSOCIATES A PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AND DAVID E. DYSON, JAMES P. STEPHENS, JR., JOHN H. RHODES, HARLIN J. WALL, MICHAEL K. LAU AND JEFFREY D. BILLMAN, TRADING AS THE CHERRINGTON GROUP, A PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP Defendants · IN ~I itE £'()URT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ' CUM B FiI?.LAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · CIVIL ACTION - LAW · NO. 96-5349 CIVIL TERM 1996 IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J.± OPINION and ORDER OF COURT At issue in this civil case is Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiff has proposed amendments that add paragraphs to the complaint that identify the individual general partners as general partners as well as amendments that include this Guido, J., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this case. designation in the prayers for relief in each of the ten counts of the complaint.: l'hc proposed amendments also change several of the factual averments to conform t/,"~,,,· evidence that has been developed through the discovery process? Defendants have opposed the motion on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff' s proposed amendments seeking damages from the individual partners of the general partnerships are contrary to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033, and (2) Plaintiff seeks to j o in additional defendants to this action after the statute of limitations has run on the causes of action for intentional interference with existing contractual relations and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and that such joinder would be prejudicial to Defendants.4 Oral argument was held on Plaintiff's motion on May 26, 1999. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the motion to amend the complaint will be granted. STATEMENT OF FACTS This case arises out of business relationships between Plaintiff and each of the Defendant partnerships. Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and interference with existing and prospective contractual relations by filing a complaint on September 27, 1996. Defendants filed preliminary objections on November 4, 1996. In response to these preliminary objections, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 20, 1996. Each of the general partnerships, as well as the individual partners, was served with copies of the 2 Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, paragraphs 1-3, 5-7 3 Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, paragraph 4 4 Defendant's brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, at 3-8 amended complaint.-~ Pk~,int~ ff now seeks to amend his complaint for the second time. The facts can be summarized ~s fi)llows. Plaintiff and I')e['cndant Capitol View Associates (hereinafter Capitol View) entered into a written agreement on July 9~ 1993, whereby Plaintiff was to sell townhouses at a development known as Crown Pointe (hereinafter the Crown Pointe agreement).6 Plaintiff alleges that, subsequent to this agreement, he and Defendant Cherrington Group entered into an oral agreement whereby Plaintiff would serve as the exclusive marketing representative for a second development known as Cherrington.7 In reliance on this alleged agreement with the Cherrington Group, Plaintiff asserts that he offered Thomas Ceranic a position as sales associate for the marketing of the Cherrington development.8 (Defendant Cherrington Group denies ever entering into an agreement with Plaintiff,9 but admits that it entered into an agreement with Rhodes Development Group, Inc., a constituent partner of Capitol View, for the marketing of the Cherrington development,to Thereafter, the Rhodes Development Group retained Mr. Ceranic as a sales associate for the marketing of the Cherrington development, t t) ~ See Brief in support of Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1033, Exhibit A (copies of the Sheriff's returns). 6 Amended complaint, Exhibit A (copy of the Crown Pointe agreement). ? Amended complaint, paragraphs 30-31. ~ Amended complaint, paragraph 41. ~ Answer with new matter of Defendants Capitol View Associates and the Cherrington Group to PlaintiWs amended complaint and counterclaim of Capitol View Associates, paragraphs 30-31. ~o Id. at paragraph 47. ~ Id. at paragraph 48. In September 1994, Plaintiff alleges, he offered Vince:it 14.. Cerrao a position as sales associate.~2 Mr. Corrao accepted and commenced sclliv44 tmi~'; itt the Crown Pointe development, according to Plaintiff's complaint. ~3 l:'laimi ff asserts that Defendant Capitol View approached Mr. Corrao about representing Capitol View's properties independent of Plaintiff,14 and that in June 1995 Mr. Corrao informed Plaintiff that he was going to terminate his relationship with Plaintiff in order to take such a position. 15 Plaintiff also alleges that he and Capitol View entered into another agreement whereby Plaintiff was to serve as the marketing representative for a third development known as Timber Chase,~6 but that Capitol View would not execute a written agreement unless Plaintiff agreed to relinquish his rights under the Crown Pointe agreement. ~ 7 (Capitol View denies that any agreement was ever reached with respect to the Timber Chase development. ~ Capitol View admits that on June 21, 1995, Plaintiff declined to accept the arrangement that would have required Plaintiff to abandon his rights under the Crown Pointe agreement. 19) On June 29, 1995, Plaintiff was advised that he was being terminated by Capitol View as the exclusive marketing representative of the Crown Pointe development, 12 Amended complaint, paragraph 56. ~3 Id. at paragraph 59. 14 Id. at paragraph 60. ~5 Id. at paragraph 63. ~6 Amended complaint, paragraph 72. ~7 Id. at paragraphs 77-78; see Amended Complaint, Exhibit B (copy of proposed interim Crown Pointe agreement). ~8 Answer with new matter of Defendants Capitol View Associates and the Cherrington Group to Plaintiff's amended complaint and counterclaim of Capitol View Associates, paragraph 74. according to tile complaint.2° Plaintiff asserts that he performed all of his obligations under the Cr~:,?.. r. !'oil~te development contract? Defendants deny this assertion? With respect to the marketing of the Crown Pointe development, Plaintiff is suing Capitol View for breach of contract and unjust enrichment? With respect to the marketing of the Cherrington development, Plaintiff is suing the Cherrington Group for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.24 With respect to the marketing of the Timber Chase development, Plaintiff is suing Capitol View for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.2s Plaintiff also asserts a claim against Capitol View £0r intentional interference with contractual relations in regard to Plaintiff's business relationship with Vincent R. Corrao.26 Additionally, Plaintiff is suing the Cherrington Group for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations in regard to Plaintiff's business relationship with Thomas Ceranic.27 Capitol View has filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff for breach of the Crown Pointe agreement? ~9 Id. at paragraph 81. 20 Id. at paragraph 82. 2~ Amended complaint, paragraph 87. 22 Answer with new matter of Defendants Capitol View Associates and the Cherrington Group to Plaintiff's amended complaint and counterclaim of Capitol View Associates, paragraph 87. 23 Amended complaint, paragraphs 89-96 (Counts I and II of the amended complaint). 24 Id. at paragraphs 97-113 (Counts III, IV, and V of the amended complaint). 2~ Id. at paragraphs 114-128 (Counts VI, VII, and VIII of the amended complaint). 26 ,Id. at paragraphs 129-136 (Count IX of the amended complaint). 27 Id. at paragraphs 137-146 (Count X of the amended complaint). 28 Answer with new matter of Defendants Capitol View Associates and the Cherrington Group to Plaintiff's amended complaint and counterclaim of Capitol View Associates, paragraphs 170-175. Plaintiff's proposed amended complait~t ci~al~ges a number of factual averments. Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of these amend~:~,,t~:~.:~ is t¢) make the factual averments conform to the evidence that has beel~ dex ~loped through the discovery process? Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint also contains amendments which add paragraphs to the complaint identifying the individual general partners .',:s general partners. The proposed amended complaint carries this designation through the prayers for relief in each of the ten counts. Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of these amendments is to respond to a previous argument raised by Defendants, which stated that the constituent partners have not been sued because they were not identified 'a ithin the body of the Amended Complaint, nor were they specifically mentioned in the prayers for relief.3° The individual partners have been named in the caption of the Amended Complaint3~ and each of the individual partners was served with a copy of the Amended Complaint.32 DISCUSSION A party, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033, "by leave of court, may at any time change the form of the action, correct the name of a party or amend his pleading." Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 further states that "[a]n amendment may be made to conform the pleading to the evidence offered or admitted." As a general rule, Pennsylvania courts "have established as parameter a policy that amendments to pleadings will be liberally allowed to secure a determination of cases on 29 Brief in support of Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1033, at 4. 3o Id at 3. See Defendant's response to PlaintiWs motion for partial summary judgment, paragraphs 1-8. ~ See Amended complaint. ~2 See Brief in support of Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1033, Exhibit A (copies of the SheriWs returns). 6 davit merits." Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 335 Pa. Super. 311,313,484 A.2d 148, 150 No~etheless, "[d]espite this liberal amendment policy, Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly ruled that an amendment will not be permitted where it is against a positive ruJe of law, or where the amendment will surprise or prejudice the opposing party. [Ioro,?ilz v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 397 Pa. Super. 473,479, 580 A.2d 395,398 (1990). For example, "[a]n amendment will not be allowed ... where it states a new cause of action after the statute of limitations has run .... "Somerset Hospital v. Mitc/Tc~ll & A,sociates, 454 Pa. Super. 188, 189, 685 A.2d 141,147 (1996). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's proposed amendments seeking damages from the individual partners are contrary to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 because Rule 1033 does not provide the basis for later adding additional parties to the cause of action. Defendants assert that "[t]he [previous] pleading in this case evidences a conscious decision to identify and collect damages only from the partnership entities.''33 Defendants submit that "Plaintiff can name anyone he wants in the caption of an action and serve him with original process, but such a procedure is irrelevant, if not useless, if those individuals are not identified in the complaint as defendants and affirmative relief is not sought against them in the pleading.''34 This court is unable to agree with Defendants' arguments. Defendants provide no support for the contention that the naming and serving of individuals is irrelevant if those individuals are not identified in the body of the complaint or the prayers for relief. Defendants' brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, at 5. Defendants brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, at 4. Despite Defendants' claims, thc actua! parties are not being changed here. All partners are liable for the debts and obliga~ i,~'~ ~t' the partnership. Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1444 § 103, 15 Pa. Cos. A. § 832'7(2)(1996). In addition, "[a] judgment entered against a defendant partnership sued in the ... names of the partners as individuals trading in the firm name shall support execution upol] the individual property of any partner named as a party if jurisdiction has been validly obtained ...."Pa. R.C.P. 2132(b). In the case subjudice, each individual parmer xvas identified in the caption of both the original complaint and the amended complaint, and each '%ras served with a copy of these documents. Furthermore, the defendant partnerships have been sued in the names of the partners trading in the firm names. Thus, it is the opinion of this court that Plaintiff's proposed amendments do not add new parties to the action and therefore the proposed amendments are not contrary to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff improperly seeks to add new parties upon whom liability could be imposed and that joinder of the individual partners to this action after the statute of limitations has passed on certain counts of the amended complaint would be prejudicial? It is true that "[w]here a proposed amendment introduces a new and different cause of action after the statute of limitations has run, the amendment will not be permitted." daindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa. Super. 220, 230, 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994), aff'd, 541 Pa. 163,661 A.2d 1362. "An amendment states a new cause of action where the amendment rests on a different legal theory, basis for recovery or relationship between Defendants' brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, at 5-8. the parties than did the original pleading." American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Farmers Bank rt~rt Trust Co. of Hanover, 435 Pa. Super. 54, 60, 644 A.2d 1232, 1235 (1994). It is also true that "[a]n amendment will not be allowed ... where it will surprise or prejudice the opposing party." Somerset Hospital v. Mitchell & Associates, 454 Pa. Super. 188, 199, 685 A.2d 141,147 (1996). Prejudice, however, "must be more than a mere detriment to the other party because any amendment requested certainly will be designed to strengthen the legal position of the amending party and correspondingly weaken the position of the adverse party." MacGregor v. Mediq Inc., 395 Pa. Super. 221, 227, 576 A.2d 1123, 1126 (1990). "The possible prejudice must stem from the fact that the new allegations are offered late, rather than in the original pleading, and not from the fact that the opponent may lose his or her case on the merits if the pleading is allowed." Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 335 Pa. Super. 311,314, 484 A.2d 148, 150 (1984) (emphasis in original). As already discussed, however, Plaintiff's proposed amendments do not constitute a j oinder of parties and therefore the amendments are not prejudicial. The individual partners are already part of the action. No other surprise or prejudice is discernible in the present case, nor have Defendants identified any other possible prejudice or surprise that this court should take into consideration. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is consistent with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033. The proposed amendments do not constitute a joinder of additional parties to the cause of action after the statute of limitations has run. Furthermore, no prejudice to Defendants will result from the proposed amendments. Therefore, taking in!o account the liberal policy established by our courts, these amendments will be pc:'~n~,itted. For the tbregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thi~,~,Tg~r of December, 1999, upon consideration of PlaintifFs motion to amend the complaint and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, PlaintifFs motion is granted. BY THE COURT, Timothy Anstine, Esq. 100 Pine Street, Suite 510 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendants :rc /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 10