Scartelli Construction Services, Inc. v. Chesapeake Building Components, Inc.

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Because this Court cannot determine whether the Magisterial Court action regarding the Dickson City Project was sufficiently similar to this action to justify invocation of the doctrine of res judi cata, because the jurisdictional threshold governing civil actions in a Pennsylvania Magisterial Court would have prevented the instant action from being heard there, and because our review of the record persuades this Court that Judge Conaboy determ ined correctly that events related to the Dickson City Project were irrelevant to this action for all purposes, Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Doc. 46) will be granted. An Order consistent with this determination will be filed contemporaneously. re 46 First MOTION to Strike 43 Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 5/21/19. (cc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Scartelli Construction,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:18-cv-1164

v.
Chesapeake Building
Components, Inc.,

(Judge Caputo)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM
The Court considers here the Motion to Strike (Doc. 46) filed by Plaintiff
Scartelli Construction Services, Inc. (“Scartelli”) on February 25, 2019.1 Scartelli
seeks to strike certain paragraphs of the Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. 43) filed
by Defendant Chesapeake Building Components, Inc. (“Chesapeake”). The
paragraphs Scartelli seeks to strike assert that Chesapeake has the right to set off
sums paid pursuant to a magisterial action in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
against any sums for which Chesapeake may become liable in this case. The
magisterial action in Lackawanna County dealt with a dispute between these
parties regarding materials supplied by Chesapeake to a construction project at the
Dickson City Borough Building (“The DC Project”). While this case involves the

1

The Court notes that Scartelli’s Motion to Strike is duplicative of a Motion to Strike (Doc.
44) that Scartelli had filed on February 21, 2019. This Memorandum addresses both filings.

same parties, it concerns only a dispute regarding materials supplied by
Chesapeake to the North Pocono Library Project in Moscow, Lackawanna County.
The Honorable Richard P. Conaboy presided over this case until his death on
November 9, 2018. On August 1, 2018 Judge Conaboy issued an Order (Doc. 14)
that, inter alia, struck paragraphs of Scartelli’s Complaint alluding to the Dickson
City Project as irrelevant to this case. Our review of Judge Conaboy’s Order and
the filings that preceded it persuade this Court that Judge Conaboy’s ruling was
made due to his perception that Scartelli’s Complaint sought damages only for
alleged malfeasance by Chesapeake related to the North Pocono Library Project.
This Court shares Judge Conaboy’s perception in that regard.
The material that Scartelli now seeks to strike from Chesapeake’s Answer
and Counterclaim is the selfsame material that Judge Conaboy declared irrelevant
with respect to Scartelli’s Complaint. This material was declared irrelevant at the
request of Chesapeake (See Doc. 2 at ¶¶ 46-47). Ironically, Chesapeake now seeks
to revive discussion of the parties’ dealings incident to the Dickson City Project in
hopes that damages it paid in that matter can potentially be set off against any
damages that may be declared owing in this case. Essentially, Chesapeake seeks to
use as a shield that which it denied Scartelli the ability to use as a sword.
Scartelli’s Motion to Strike is predicated on the law of the case. Scartelli
reasons that Judge Conaboy’s decision that discussion of the Dickson City Project

-2-

in an action involving only the North Pocono Library Project was irrelevant to its
complaint also renders it irrelevant to Chesapeake’s defense. Chesapeake counters
“… to the extent Plaintiff’s North Pocono Library Project claims were, or could
have been, litigated at the Magistrate Hearing, they are barred or limited by the
doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, or, in the alternative, that Chesapeake
is entitled to a set off or recoupment.” (Doc. 50 at 7). Chesapeake states correctly
that “res judicata bars not only claims actually litigated in a prior action, but also
those which could have been litigated in a prior action.” Elkadrawy v. Vanguard
Group, Inc. 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d. Cir. 2009). (Id. at 8). The Elkadrawy Court
observed that the key inquiry for application of the doctrine of res judicata is
“whether the acts complained of were the same, whether the material facts alleged
in each suit were the same, and whether the witnesses and documentation required
to prove such allegations were the same.” Citing United States v. Athlone
Industries, Inc., 746 F. 2d 977, 984 (3d. Cir. 1984).
There are two problems with Chesapeake’s position. First, Magisterial
District Courts in Pennsylvania are not courts of record. This prevents the Court
from determining whether there is a sufficient identity of acts and issues common
to that case and the instant case. The mere fact that the cases obviously involved
different projects to be completed at different times in different locations suggests
otherwise. However, even if that were not so, an additional impediment exists.

-3-

The jurisdictional limit in Pennsylvania Magisterial District Courts confers
jurisdiction only on those civil cases in which the damages alleged amount to less
than $12,000.00. (See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 1515 (a)(3)). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
in this matter seeks judgment in the amount of $131,521.36. (Doc. 15 at 16). Given
the magnitude of this claim, Plaintiff would have been prohibited from bringing it
in the Magisterial Court due to the previously discussed jurisdictional limit. Thus,
this action could not have been presented in the Magisterial Court.
Because this Court cannot determine whether the Magisterial Court action
regarding the Dickson City Project was sufficiently similar to this action to justify
invocation of the doctrine of res judicata, because the jurisdictional threshold
governing civil actions in a Pennsylvania Magisterial Court would have prevented
the instant action from being heard there, and because our review of the record
persuades this Court that Judge Conaboy determined correctly that events related
to the Dickson City Project were irrelevant to this action for all purposes,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 46) will be granted. An Order consistent with
this determination will be filed contemporaneously.
By the Court:

s/A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
Dated: May 21, 2019
-4-