Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-8393 civilRITE AID CORPORATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : 00-8393 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, : Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the defendant’s preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Steven W. Emmet, then residing in Florida, accepted employment with Rite Aid Corporation in Pennsylvania on March 8, 1999. On the date the defendant accepted employment with the plaintiff, he entered into a contract by which the plaintiff promised to pay the defendant’s relocation costs on condition that he continue his employment for at least one year. The complaint goes on to recite that the defendant “personally assured and represented to Plaintiff that he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the contract.” According to the complaint, the defendant left his employment on October 15, 1999. The plaintiff now seeks reimbursement of the relocation costs in the amount of $18, 941.94. The defendant has raised three preliminary objections. The first is a contention that the amended complaint does not comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h). Some confusion has been engendered in this case because the defendant urges upon the court an outdated version of the rule, claiming that 1019(h) contains a requirement that a copy of any written agreement be attached to the complaint. It is true that the filing of a complaint requires the attachment of any 00-8393 CIVIL copy of a written agreement, but that requirement appears under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019( i) not 1019(h). The current 1019(h) requires the complaint to specifically state whether the agreement was oral or written. Interestingly, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not state whether the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was oral or written but merely alleges that the parties “entered into a contract.” The defendant is “in the right church but the wrong pew.” We will nonetheless sustain the preliminary objection but grant a relief slightly different from the one requested. The second preliminary objection in this case is in the nature of a demurrer. The defendant contends that the complaint fails to set forth a claim for breach of contract. The question presented by a demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. McMahon v. Shea , 547 Pa. 124, 129, 688 A.2d 1179, 1181 (1997). A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. Firing v. Kephart , 466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833, 834 (1976). Under Pennsylvania law, a cause of action for breach of contract is established by showing the existence of a contract to which the plaintiff and defendant were parties, the essential terms of that contract, a breach of the duty imposed by the contract and resulting damages. Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Melody , 851 F.Supp. 660, 672 (E.D. Pa. 1994). In the present case, we are satisfied that the amended complaint sets forth the required elements for a cause of action for breach of contract. To the extent that there is uncertainty as to whether or not the contract was oral or written, this matter will be resolved by our treatment of the first preliminary objection. 2 00-8393 CIVIL In preliminary objection number three, the defendant contends that the amended complaint does not set forth a claim for unjust enrichment. “The elements of unjust enrichment are benefits conferred on one party by another, appreciation of such benefits by the recipient, and acceptance and retention of these benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for the recipient to retain the benefits without payment of value.” 16 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Com § 2:2 (1994); Styer v. Hugo , 422 Pa.Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 ( Pa.Super. 1993), aff’d , 535 Pa. 610, 637 A.2d 276 (1994). In this case, the plaintiff alleges that it conferred a benefit on the defendant by relocating him from Florida to Pennsylvania, that this was a benefit enjoyed by the defendant and was a benefit the defendant agreed to accept in exchange for working for the plaintiff for a period of no less than one year. It may well be, of course, th at the claim for unjust enrichment will be subsumed by the breach of contract action. In fact, it has been held that an action for unjust enrichment will not lie where there is a written or express contract between the parties. See Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203 ( Pa.Super. 1999). Again, this matter cannot be finally addressed until the nature of the contract between the parties has been properly pled. Thus, we will deny this preliminary objection but reserve to the defendant the right to revisit the matter. ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendant based on a violation of Rule Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(h) is SUSTAINED. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend in order to state whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written and, if written, to attach a copy of the writing to the complaint. 3 00-8393 CIVIL The preliminary objection of the defendant in the nature of a demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED. The preliminary objection of the defendant to the count of unjust enrichment is DENIED without prejudice. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For the Plaintiff Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire For the Defendant : rlm 4 RITE AID CORPORATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : 00-8393 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, : Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendant based on a violation of Rule Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(h) is SUSTAINED. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend in order to state whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written and, if written, to attach a copy of the writing to the complaint. The preliminary objection of the defendant in the nature of a demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED. The preliminary objection of the defendan t to the count of unjust enrichment is DENIED without prejudice. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For the Plaintiff Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire For the Defendant : rlm 00-8393 CIVIL 6