Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-6248.
May 26, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of May, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) and Plaintiffs' Response, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims is DENIED. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded all of the elements of their § 1983 claims, and will be afforded the chance to make their case. Each case string-cited by Defendants on pages 5-6 of their Brief is off-point. Most of the cases cited by Defendants deal with § 1983 claims disposed of on summary judgment, not on a motion to dismiss. Those that do deal with motions to dismiss grant those motions for failure to allege sufficient facts in support of the claims. In Washington v. City of Chester, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4939 (E.D. Pa. April 14, 1997), Judge Reed dismissed the plaintiff's § 1983 claim because she failed to sufficiently plead that the defendant was a policymaker. In Cooper-Nicholas v. City of Chester, 1996 WL 296514 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1996), a case related to Washington, Judge Reed dismissed the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for precisely the same reason. In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege that "In January, 2000, John F. Street was sworn in as Mayor of the City of Philadelphia and became the chief representative and policy-making official for the City," rendering Washington andCooper inapplicable. Am. Complaint at ¶ 35. In Boyd v. Houston Northern, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11512 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 1987), Judge Ditter dismissed the plaintiff's § 1983 claim for failure to sufficiently plead a policy or custom. In the instant case, Plaintiffs have repeatedly pleaded unlawful policies or customs. Am. Complaint at ¶ 37, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 66 et seq. Paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Amended Complaint state that Defendant Street conspired with other individuals to "seek to evade [the City's] contractual and legal responsibilities. . . ." Amended Complaint at ¶ 37. As to Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs cannot show causation, the Court notes that whether Defendants truly "[tried] their best" (Defendants Motion at 9) to carry out their obligations to Plaintiffs is a question of fact; therefore, discovery is required to resolve it. As Plaintiffs have pleaded all of the requisite elements of their claims, Defendants' Motion must fail.
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Conspiracy claim is DENIED. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the elements of conspiracy, and are entitled to proceed to discovery on the matter. If it later becomes evident that Plaintiffs will not be able to prove their claim, Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment.
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is DISMISSED from this case. An individual department is legally indistinguishable from the city for purposes of liability in § 1983. Lynch v. City of Philadelphia, 166 F. Supp.2d 224, 228 (E.D. Pa. 2001). The Court has concerns, however, regarding the legal character of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority; whether they are entitled to dismissal at this point is unclear. Defendants may renew their Motion to Dismiss the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority at a later date, after its legal status has been determined.
4. The Motion to Dismiss Defendants Street, McLaughlin, and Wetzel ("Individual Defendants") on grounds of qualified immunity is DENIED. Although the Individual Defendants may indeed be entitled to qualified immunity, this question is at least in part based on factual issues. Discovery is required to determine whether the Individual Defendants acted reasonably, making their motion for dismissal premature.
5. Defendants' Motion to Adjust Plaintiffs' Contract Damage Calculation, which this Court will treat as a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Contract Claims, is DENIED. Defendants have not actually made a legal argument that Plaintiffs' Contract Claims should be dismissed; rather, Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' calculation of their maximum liability for damages running from the alleged breach of contract. Defendants argue that enforcing Plaintiffs' specific performance demand would be unconscionable because the cost of repairing Plaintiffs' homes is allegedly disproportionately higher than their value. These legal assertions all turn on facts that have not been established for the purposes of this litigation (including the value of Plaintiffs' homes and the cost of repairing them). For this reason alone, Defendants' Motion must be denied because, without discovery, it is premature and legally untenable. As an additional ground for denial, the Court notes that Defendants' argument has no place in a motion to dismiss; it does not actually request any relief that this Court is capable of granting at this time. If supported by the evidence, Defendants may raise the issue of contract damages at the appropriate time, with the appropriate motion.
6. The Court will not accept Defendants' invitation to extend the economic loss doctrine to § 1983 causes of action that are, as here, somewhat intertwined with breach of contract claims. Likewise, the Court will not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking relief because of the "gist of the action" doctrine.See American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co. v. Fojanini, 90 F. Supp.2d 615, 622 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (discussing the "gist of the action" doctrine, noting that the "test determines from the complaint the essential nature of the claims alleged by distinguishing between contract and tort actions on the basis of [the] source of the duties allegedly breached"). On the face of the Amended Complaint, it would seem that the "gist of the action" doctrine should not compel dismissal, as the wrongs complained of in the Amended Complaint extend beyond mere breach of contract, and into the realm of wrongs "imposed on members of society as a matter of social-policy." Id. at 622. Once discovery has taken place it may become apparent that the true gist of Plaintiffs' claims sounds in contract. If appropriate, the Court will reconsider Defendants' arguments on a future motion.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.