Brandywine Village Associates v. Carlino East Brandywine LP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: August 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-2457
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 23-2457 ________________

BRANDYWINE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES,

Appellant

v.

CARLINO EAST BRANDYWINE, LP; EAST BRANDYWINE TOWNSHIP; CHRISTINA B. WATTERS; KATHERINE M. KETTLETY, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK AND BEATRICE WATTERS; FRANK E. WATTERS, JR.; THOMAS R. WATTERS; GIANT COMPANY, LLC ________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 5-16-cv-05209) District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl ________________

Argued on May 7, 2024

Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 5, 2024)

Jeffry W. Duffy (Argued) Tyson Herrold Carl W. Hittinger Baker & Hostetler 1735 Market Street Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellant Theodore H. Jobes Fox Rothschild 2000 Market Street 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103

Pamela M. Tobin (Argued) Kaplin, Stewart, Meloff, Reiter & Stein 910 Harvest Drive P.O. Box 3037 Blue Bell, PA 19422

Counsel for Appellees Carlino East Brandywine, LP, Christina B. Watters, Katherine M. Kettlety, In their Individual Capacities and as Co-Administrators of the Estates of Frank and Beatrice Watters, Frank E. Watters, Jr. and Thomas R. Watters

Warren E. Kampf (Argued) Buckley, Brion, McGuire & Morris 118 W Market Street Suite 300 West Chester, PA 19382

Counsel for Appellee East Brandywine Township

Howard D. Geneslaw John D. Haggerty Jonathan S. Liss Kevin R. Reich (Argued) Gibbons One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102

Counsel for Appellee Giant Company, LLC

2 ________________

OPINION* ________________

ROTH, Circuit Judge

Brandywine Village Associates (BVA) sued several Defendants1 for actions relating

to the development of a supermarket in Brandywine Township, Pennsylvania. The District

Court dismissed all claims and entered final judgment against BVA. 2 We will affirm the

order of the District Court and put an end to this federal litigation.3

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1367. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise de novo review of an appeal of a

motion to dismiss, and we take as true all well-pleaded allegations.4

BVA’s Sherman Act claims were properly dismissed because BVA failed to allege

antitrust injury and therefore lacks standing. Likewise, BVA’s pendant unfair competition

claims were properly dismissed for failure to state an injury, and its abuse of process claims

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Defendants include Carlino East Brandywine, L.P. (Carlino); East Brandywine Township (Town); The Giant Company, LLC (Giant); and Christina B. Watters, Frank E. Watters, Jr., Thomas R. Watters, and Katherine M. Kettlety (Individual Landowners). 2 The District Court granted the Town’s Motion to Dismiss on March 26, 2018. The District Court granted Carlino’s Second Motion to Dismiss, which it construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, on August 1, 2023. BVA appeals the District Court’s orders dismissing all claims against Defendants. 3 We write only for the parties and will therefore limit our discussion to our holding. 4 In re NAHC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 1322 (3d Cir. 2002). We need not accept as true “unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences.” Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). 3 were properly dismissed for the same reason. BVA’s claims for specific performance of

the Cross Easement Agreement are moot and were properly dismissed. Finally, BVA’s

claims for breach of contract of the Cross Easement Agreement are estopped and were

properly dismissed.5

We will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing all claims against

Defendants with prejudice and enter final judgment against BVA.

5 See Carlino E. Brandywine, L.P. v. Brandywine Vill. Ass’n, 197 A.3d 1189, 1201–02 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018); see also Condemnation of Fee Simple Title to 0.069 Acres, 2018 WL 3213113, *9-10 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 2, 2018), app. den., 202 A.3d 684 (Pa. 2018). 4