Shannon Cooper and John Cooper, on behalf of themselves, and a class of similarly situated persons v. SGYS St. Ives, LLC and Northbrook Management, LLC

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed judgment on the pleadings in favor of SGYS St. Ives, LLC and Northbrook Management, LLC in a putative class action seeking rent abatement under Philadelphia’s Lead Paint Disclosure and Certification Ordinance. The court held that the landlord’s HUD-compliant random-sampling inspection satisfied the ordinance’s lead-testing requirements and that the plaintiffs’ receipt of the lead-free certification by email was admitted through their insufficiently specific denial. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs remained tenants with standing because the lease automatically renewed and the landlord had not taken action to terminate it.

Holdings

1. The appellants remained tenants under the ordinance because the lease automatically renewed unless terminated by sixty days' written notice, and the landlord had not taken the contractual or legal steps necessary to terminate the lease.
2. The landlord's testing satisfied Philadelphia's lead-disclosure ordinance because the ordinance incorporates EPA regulations, those regulations recognize HUD methodologies, and the applicable HUD multi-family protocol authorized testing a random sample of twenty-eight units in a 516-unit complex built between 1960 and 1977.
3. A lessee cannot recover under Philadelphia Code § 6-809 when the only alleged violation is that the lessee did not sign or acknowledge receipt of a valid lead-free certification that the lessor provided.
4. Judgment on the pleadings was proper because the pleadings established that the appellants received the certification, the testing complied with the applicable methodology, and the appellants identified no material factual dispute requiring a jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the landlord's random sampling of twenty-eight units in a 516-unit apartment complex satisfied Philadelphia Code § 6-803(3)(a)(.1) and the ordinance's lead-testing requirements.
2. Whether the tenants' failure to sign the lead-free certification made the landlord liable under Philadelphia Code §§ 6-803 and 6-809 when the certification had been provided to them.
3. Whether judgment on the pleadings was proper despite the appellants' asserted factual disputes concerning receipt of the certification and the testing methodology.
4. Whether the appellants remained current tenants with standing to invoke the ordinance despite their failure to pay rent.

Disposition

affirmed