Mason v. American Water Resources, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 15, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-04293
StatusUnknown

This text of Mason v. American Water Resources, LLC (Mason v. American Water Resources, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mason v. American Water Resources, LLC, (E.D. Pa. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLIFTON MASON, CIVIL ACTION SHERRIAH MASON and FLORENCE MASON, Plaintiffs,

v. NO. 23-4293

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant.

Hodge, J. April 15, 2025 MEMORANDUM This case arises from Plaintiffs’ Florence, Sherriah, and Clifton Mason’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “the Masons”) claims against Defendant American Water Resources, LLC (“AWR”) for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Breach of Contract, and Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation. (See generally ECF No. 1-3.) The Masons were initially represented by counsel, however, their attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as counsel shortly after the case was removed to federal court. (ECF No. 4.) Since then, the Masons have proceeded pro se. Unfortunately, the relationship between the Masons and counsel for AWR has deteriorated over the lifespan of this lawsuit, and AWR has now filed two Motions for Sanctions against the Masons. (ECF Nos. 54, 61.) For the following reasons, AWR’s Motion is granted. This case shall be dismissed with prejudice. However, the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions on Plaintiffs. I. BACKGROUND a. Factual Background1 The Masons initially brought this lawsuit in September 2023 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, and Defendant then removed the case to federal court in November 2023. (See

ECF No. 1.) The underlying claims are, briefly, as follows: Plaintiffs purchased a “Combo Water and Sewer Line Protection Program” (“the warranty”) in 2019, and made monthly payments for the program. (ECF No. 1-3 ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiffs allege that they were not provided with terms and conditions of the protection program at the time of purchase, nor at any other point until three years later. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) The purpose of the protection program is to cover repairs of a property’s water, sewer, supply, and drainage systems. (Id. ¶ 14.) In or around January 2022, a snow storm caused Plaintiffs’ sewer pipe to crack, leading to sewage backing up into their home. (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs made a claim to AWR for a repair two days after the snow storm. (Id. ¶ 22.) AWR sent Roto-Rooter plumbing specialists to examine the damage; they assessed the repair at approximately $30,000, and told Plaintiffs the repair would be covered under their warranty. (Id.

¶¶ 23-26.) AWR then proceeded to send additional repair specialists over several months, which Plaintiffs allege was in furtherance of its effort to deny Plaintiff’s claim under the warranty. (Id. ¶¶ 27-37.) However, representatives of Defendants did confirm to Plaintiffs on the telephone that the repair would be covered by the warranty. (Id. ¶ 40.) These back-and-forth communications continued for nearly all of 2022, during which time the Masons did not have functional plumbing or sewer lines in their home. (Id. ¶¶ 38-51.) On December 7, 2022, AWR denied the Mason’s claim and rejected a proposal from Roto-Rooter to repair the damage. (Id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiffs allege the denial was the first time they were provided with

1 The Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system. the warranty’s terms and conditions. (Id. ¶ 58.) The Masons continued to dispute the denial with AWR. (Id. ¶ 61-69.) Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they have not had working plumbing in their home since January 2022, have had continual water leaking, and are unable to use their shower. (Id. ¶ 73-74.) The home also sustained water damage. (Id. ¶ 77.)

Plaintiffs ultimately filed this lawsuit, alleging that AWR violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, as well as claims for Breach of Contract and Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation. (Id. ¶¶ 81-120.) b. Procedural History Shortly after this case was removed from state court in November 2023, AWR filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, arguing that the dispute must be resolved through arbitration pursuant to a valid Arbitration Clause in the Water Line, Sewer Line, and In Home Plumbing Protection Program agreement (the warranty program the Masons had purchased). (ECF No. 3.) Just three days later, on November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel, citing an “irretrievable breakdown in the attorney client relationship,” and “irreconcilable

differences in opinion regarding fundamental issues in this matter.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) The Court held oral argument on the Motion on January 29, 2024, after which the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel was granted. (ECF No. 8.) The Court allowed Plaintiffs several months to secure new representation. However, they were unable to find a new attorney, and since that time have proceeded in this matter pro se. (See ECF No. 16, 18.) Plaintiffs ultimately filed their opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration on September 19, 2024. (ECF No. 25.) On October 11, 2024, Defendant submitted to the Court a letter stating that “facts surrounding Plaintiff Sherriah Mason’s enrollment in the warranty program now appear to be different then what is recited in AWR’s Motion to Compel Arbitration,” and requesting a 60-day discovery period on the question of arbitrability of the Masons’ claims. (ECF No. 27) The Court granted Defendant’s request on the same day, ordering the parties to complete this limited discovery and submit a status report to the Court by December 17, 2024. (ECF No. 28.) The Court also ordered that the pending Motion to Compel Arbitration be dismissed as moot until the question

of arbitrability was resolved. (Id.) Plaintiffs then appealed to the Third Circuit the Court’s order granting the 60-day discovery period on arbitrability (ECF No. 29); however, the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 33.) On January 21, 2025, Defendants informed the Court that due to the appeal, Plaintiff Sherriah Mason had not yet been deposed on the arbitrability issue. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiffs also had not responded to Defendant’s emails about the joint status report. (Id.) The Court then extended the arbitrability discovery period an additional 60 days, to March 24, 2025. (ECF No. 37.) Following that order, the Masons emailed the Court stating that they were “perplexed that this Court is trying to force us into arbitration when the court has been aware that the opposing party has no basis for arbitration.” (See January 26, 2025 email from Clifton Mason to J. Hodge

Chambers.) The Court then ordered a status conference, with the goal of explaining to Plaintiffs that at that point, there was no pending motion to compel arbitration, rather, the Court had merely allowed the parties to conduct limited discovery on whether arbitration was an option at all. (ECF No. 38.) The Court held a status conference on February 12, 2025. The Court explained the procedural posture of the case and heard from both parties. Plaintiffs stated that the proceedings felt one-sided, including the arbitrability discovery. The Court explained to the Masons that they had equal opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue of arbitrability, and also informed them that per the Court’s prior order, they were required to sit for any deposition on the issue of arbitrability noticed by AWR.2 Also on the conference, attorneys for AWR expressed frustration about comments the Masons had made in emails and filings about the counsels’ ethical practices, and that the Masons had made false accusations about statements the AWR attorneys made, and accused the attorneys of having personal relationships with Judge Hodge that had led to favoritism

in the case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Tabron v. Grace
6 F.3d 147 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Wallace v. Graphic Management Associates
197 F. App'x 138 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health
938 F.3d 69 (Third Circuit, 2019)
Schaffer v. Chicago Police Officers
120 F.R.D. 514 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
Martin v. Farmers First Bank
151 F.R.D. 44 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mason v. American Water Resources, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-american-water-resources-llc-paed-2025.