Ji, et al. v. CA Condo Management, LLC, et al.

Filing 36

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/19/15. The Court denies the motion of Defendants Colin Brechbill and WRI Capital Group, Inc., for judgment on the pleadings. (Related Doc. 22 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
PEIPING JI, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
CA CONDO MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-02575

OPINION
[Resolving Doc. 22]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs are ten Chinese nationals who say they were defrauded in a Northern Ohio real
estate deal. They allege that Defendants Jeffrey Moffie, Colin Brechbill, and several corporations
under the individual Defendants’ control defrauded them after Plaintiffs purchased condominiums
in Lorain, Ohio.1/ Plaintiffs say that Defendants induced them to purchase condominiums through
fraudulent promises that the units were renovated and would yield guaranteed rental income for a
year.2/
Brechbill and the company he controls, WRI Capital Group, Inc. (“WRI”), move for
judgment on the pleadings.3/ Brechbill and WRI say they were merely marketing agents for Moffie
and his companies and only transmitted information given to them. Brechbill and WRI say they can
have no liability to Plaintiffs for fraudulent inducement as a result. For the following reasons,

1/

Doc. 1.
Id.

2/
3/

Doc. 22.

-1-

Case No. 1:14-cv-02575
Gwin, J.
Brechbill and WRI’s motion is DENIED.
I. Standards
“For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material
allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be
granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.”4/ A motion brought
pursuant to Rule 12(c) is appropriately granted “when no material issue of fact exists and the party
making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”5/
II. Analysis
Brechbill and WRI provide just three sentences of argument as to why their motion should
be granted. They say, “Plaintiffs through the Complaint and attached exhibits show only that
Defendants herein were acting on behalf of the actual owners of the condominium, and offer no
statements or evidence that Defendants themselves were involved in or had knowledge of any
misrepresentation or fraud in their dealings with Plaintiffs.”6/
Plaintiffs, however, say that Brechbill and WRI were more than just marketing intermediaries
between Moffie and the Plaintiffs.7/ Plaintiffs allege that Brechbill and WRI knew that the claims
made to Plaintiffs were false, and that Brechbill was Moffie’s partner, not just a marketer hired to
promote sales. In support of the argument that Brechbill and WRI were more than marketing agents,
Plaintiffs say that Brechbill and WRI received nearly half of the sale proceeds from each

4/

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted).
5/

Id. at 582 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Doc. 22 at 4.

6/
7/

Doc. 1 at 11-12.

-2-

Case No. 1:14-cv-02575
Gwin, J.
condominium.8/ Plaintiffs point to numerous emails in which Brechbill referred to himself and
Moffie as “we,” with statements such as “we buy units” and “[w]e manage the units long term for
your buyers.”9/ Brechbill and WRI filed a reply only to say that Plaintiffs have deliberately
misrepresented one email communication.10/
“[T]he elements of fraudulent inducement are: (1) an actual or implied false representation
concerning a fact or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact, (2) which is material
to the transaction; (3) knowledge of the falsity of the representation or such recklessness or utter
disregard for its truthfulness that knowledge may be inferred; (4) intent to induce reliance on the
representation; (5) justifiable reliance; and (6) injury proximately caused by the reliance.”11/
The Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to support their claim that WRI and Brechbill
knowingly made material false representations that Plaintiffs relied on to their detriment. WRI and
Brechbill can argue their version of events later on. But the current motion is judged based on
Plaintiffs’ alleged facts, not those that WRI and Brechbill allege in response. Therefore, WRI and
Brechbill’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 19, 2015

8/

Doc. 28-2.

9/

Doc. 1 at 11.
Doc. 34.

10/
11/

Simon Prop. Grp., L.P. v. Kill, No. 1:09-30, 2010 WL 1266835, at *5 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2010).

-3-