CSERVAK et al v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on 07/10/14. (jer)

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

FRANK J. CSERVAK and JUDITH
BARIE CSERVAK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE
COMMISSION and WILLIAM K.
LIEBERMAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13 - 612
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

MEMORANDUM ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DIMISS
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ June 10, 2014 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 42) in the case filed at the above caption. The case was initially
closed following the oral argument held on September 24, 2013 on Defendants’ previous Motion
to Dismiss filed at ECF No. 10, but was reopened on December 4, 2013 following an October
17, 2013 Board of Viewers’ Report awarding the Plaintiffs an amount greatly in excess of the
amount offered in 2009 (i.e., finding a significant valuation disparity) (ECF No. 26). The Court
denied the Defendants’ prior July 1, 2013 Motion to Dismiss, supra (ECF No. 10) with the
exception of striking the request for an injunction of the State court proceedings. The Court’s
reasons for denial were fully explicated at oral argument, as referenced in the Text Order entered
on September 24, 2013.
Upon review of Defendants’ present Motion to Dismiss the claim as unripe (see
Memorandum of Law in Support at 4: “The issue presently before the Court is one of ripeness.”),

the Court finds Defendants proffer no new or merited basis for dismissal. Although Defendants’
Memorandum of Law in Support (ECF No. 44) replaces the inapposite cases directly cited in its
prior pleading with direct citation to Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v.
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), Williamson underpinned Defendants’
principal case on this issue in its prior Motion, i.e., Baranowski v. Borough of Palmyra, 868
F.Supp. 86, 88 (M.D. Pa. 1994)( See Defendants’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 11) at 8-10) and the Court’s analysis of the argument first made by
Defendants in July, 2013 and canvassed at Oral Argument that September remains unaltered.
That is, that in addition to the eminent domain proceedings and property valuation, Plaintiffs in
the case sub judice have sufficiently stated claims for specific additional Federal causes of action
and additional damages. Compare Defendants’ June, 2014 Memorandum of Law at 6 (asserting
that claims “state nothing more than . . . that [Plaintiffs] were not provided just compensation for
their property”). The Court also refers Defendants to the determinations in the State Court
proceedings and the Amended Complaint in this action (including additional allegations
regarding Defendants’ conduct) which have been filed of record in the interim.
Defendants’ largely reiterated assertions for dismissal having been addressed in the
context of the Court’s prior ruling, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2014, that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

_________________________
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Chief U. S. Magistrate Judge

cc:

All Counsel of Record.

2