Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-6081 R. LUKE ROHRBAUGH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : V. : : INTEGRITY BANK AND GEORGE : GUNNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : AGENT FOR INTEGRITY BANK, : DEFENDANTS : 10-6081 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS, INTEGRITY BANK AND GEORGE GUNNETT TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF R. LUKE ROHRBAUGH TO DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HESS, PJ. AND MASLAND, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., April 19, 2011:-- Before the court are the preliminary objections filed by Defendants, Integrity Bank and George Gunnett to the complaint filed by Plaintiff, R. Luke Rohrbaugh. Also before the court are Plaintiff's preliminary objections to the Defendants' preliminary objections. Specifically, Defendants want to strike Plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees while Plaintiff asks the court to strike Defendants' objections on the grounds that they are untimely and violate the parties' 1 settlement agreement. Following briefing by the parties and argument en banc, all preliminary objections are overruled. I. Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections We will first address Plaintiff's preliminary objections to Defendants' preliminary 1 Plaintiff also asks the court to impose monetary sanctions against Defendants or Defendants' counsel for the breach of the parties' alleged agreement and the subsequent filing of a “spurious” preliminary objection. Motions court is not the appropriate venue to address this factual dispute. We will not reach this issue. 10-6081 CIVIL TERM objections. Plaintiff's first basis for striking Defendant's objections is an alleged agreement between the parties wherein Plaintiff granted Defendants an extension of time for filing an answer on the condition that they not file preliminary objections. Defendants dispute the existence of such an agreement. In support of his position, Plaintiff has attached a series of emails that purport to establish the agreement. At this time, there is insufficient material in the record for us to determine whether such an agreement existed. Argument court is not the appropriate venue to resolve contested factual issues. Accordingly, we will resolve the instant objections as if such an agreement did not exist. Plaintiff also asks the court to strike Defendants' preliminary objections on the grounds that they were not timely filed. In general, a response to a complaint must be filed within twenty days after service of the complaint. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1026(a). However, this rule is permissive rather than mandatory. Ambrose v. Cross Creek Condominiums, 602 A.2d 864, 868 (Pa. Super. 1992). It is within this court's sound discretion to permit the filing of late pleadings “where the opposing party will not be prejudiced and justice so requires.” Id. Further, the rules of civil procedure, including filing rules, should be liberally construed to achieve equitable results. Id.; see Pa. R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(1). With these principles in mind, the court now examines whether permitting Defendants to file untimely preliminary objections will prejudice Plaintiffs and whether such permission will achieve a just result. Defendant Integrity Bank was served on September 24, 2010. Defendant Gunnett was served on October 11, 2010. Defendants jointly filed preliminary objections on October 27, 2010. As such, the preliminary objections were untimely as to Defendant Integrity Bank, but timely as to Defendant Gunnett. Plaintiff claims the untimely filing of the objections prejudices him by increasing his litigation costs. Potentially increased costs notwithstanding, we will consider Defendants' objections and overrule Plaintiff's objections. As illustrated above, -2- 10-6081 CIVIL TERM Defendant Gunnett's objections were timely filed and Plaintiff would therefore have had to respond to them irrespective of Defendant Integrity Banks untimely filing of its objections. Defendants jointly filed identical preliminary objections and thus, Plaintiff would incur no significant additional litigation costs to address Defendant Integrity Bank's objections simultaneously. As such, our consideration of the preliminary objections does not offend justice. Plaintiff’s preliminary objections are overruled. II. Defendants' Preliminary Objections Defendants preliminary objections seek to strike Plaintiff's requests for awards of attorney's fees. At this stage in the pleadings, the court is constrained to overrule these preliminary objections. For the purpose of considering Defendants' preliminary objections, we take as true all of Plaintiff's well-pleaded material facts and any inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. Daynsh v. Dept. of Corrections, 845 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). With this generous standard in mind, the court turns to whether Plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to justify an award of attorney's fees. Generally, litigants are responsible for their own attorney's fees “unless otherwise provided by statutory authority, agreement of the parties[,] or some other recognized exception.” Equibank v. Miller, 619 A.2d 336, 338 (Pa. Super. 1993). Relevant here, fees may be awarded where "the conduct of another party in commencing the matter or otherwise was arbitrary, vexatious or in bad faith." 42 Pa.C.S. §2503(9). Here, a review of Plaintiff's complaint indicates that he has sufficiently pleaded facts to establish his request for fees on the basis of Defendants' alleged bad faith conduct. Specifically, in support of his request pursuant to his fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiff avers: -3- 10-6081 CIVIL TERM Upon information and belief, the representations made by the Defendants were not only intentionally misleading and false, but were further made for the purpose of luring a customer away from a competitor lending institution. By advancing their own pecuniary interests to the financial detriment of Plaintiff, Defendants' [sic] acted in callous disregard of Plaintiff's best interests in a willful and wanton manner warranting the imposition of punitive damages against both Defendants in Plaintiff's favor. Compl. at ¶113. In support of his fee request under his negligent mispresentation claim, Plaintiff makes an identical averment. Compl. at ¶130. Taking these facts as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, we are constrained to conclude Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to prevent the immediate striking of their request for attorney's fees. Defendants' preliminary objections seeking to strike Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be overruled. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's preliminary objections to Defendants' preliminary objections are overruled. Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint are also overruled. We do not reach the disputed factual issues raised by Plaintiff's preliminary objections. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ___ day of April, 2011, upon consideration of the preliminary objections filed by Defendants and the preliminary objections to those objections filed by OVERRULED Plaintiff, briefing by the parties, and argument en banc, all objections are . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. -4- 10-6081 CIVIL TERM Paige Macdonald-Matthew, Esquire For Plaintiff Clayton W. Davis, Esquire For Defendants :saa -5-