RMJ, Ventures, LLC v. Quakertown Borough, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addresses a motion to dismiss claims arising from Quakertown Borough’s denial of sewer-facility access to a planned development. The court dismisses the plaintiff’s Equal Protection and substantive due process claims without prejudice and with leave to amend, dismisses the civil conspiracy claim with prejudice, and denies the motion under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority. The court does not resolve the qualified-immunity issue at this stage.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state an equal protection claim because it did not allege membership in a constitutionally protected class or sufficiently plead that similarly situated projects were treated differently in all relevant respects. Count I was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.
2. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a fundamental property interest through arbitrary, irrational, or conscience-shocking conduct. Count II was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.
3. The complaint failed to plead a civil conspiracy because it did not allege specific facts showing an agreement, the parties and time of the agreement, the object of the conspiracy, or acts in furtherance of a common scheme. Count III was dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
4. The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine barred the conspiracy claim because Quakertown Borough could not conspire with its officials acting as the Borough's agents within their official capacities, and the complaint did not plausibly allege that they acted personally or outside the scope of their official duties.
5. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority were not required or indispensable parties under Rule 19, so dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7) was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint adequately stated a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint adequately stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded a civil conspiracy claim.
4. Whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine barred the conspiracy claim against Quakertown Borough and its officials.
5. Whether the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority were required or indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

Disposition

other