Opinion
No. 02-CV-385
July 25, 2002
EXPLANATION AND ORDER
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), claiming that based on the allegations contained in the complaint plaintiffs cannot prove any set of facts which would entitle them to relief. Specifically, defendant contends that: (1) the breach of contract claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to plead the essential terms of the contract or, in the alternative, failed to plead any compensable damages; (2) plaintiffs' claim arising under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law should be dismissed because the complaint alleges only nonfeasance, not the misfeasance required for recovery; and (3) the bad faith claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs did not make specific allegations of ill will or dishonesty in their complaint. I will deny defendant's motion.
Defendant asks that as an alternative to dismissal, I strike the plaintiffs' demand for punitive damages on the breach of contract claim because the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to justify such an award.
Plaintiffs' complaint complies with the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Moreover, after drawing all reasonable inference in favor of plaintiffs, I find that after development of the record, plaintiffs may be able to demonstrate a set of circumstances that would entitle them to relief. Therefore, dismissal of plaintiffs complaint would be premature at this time and are more appropriately raised on a motion for summary judgment.
If defendant chooses to pursue these arguments after the close of discovery, I would encourage the use of my alternate procedure for accelerated judgment, though, of course, defendant may choose to utilize the traditional Rule 56 motion.
As an alternative to dismissal, defendant moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Specifically, they ask that plaintiffs identify what compensable damages they have suffered, what conduct on the part of defendant constitutes bad faith, and what actions constitute misfeasance for purposes of the consumer protection law. I will also deny this request. The parties will have ample opportunity to access this information through discovery.
AND NOW, this 25th day of July 2002, it is ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint (docket entry #3) is DENIED.