Yoga studio says temperature not right in suit against landlord

Jon Campisi Jun. 14, 2011, 9:02am

A man who ran a Philadelphia yoga studio is suing his former landlord, accusing him of misrepresenting the property’s anticipated monthly electric bill.

Attorney Harris Legome, of the Haddonfield, N.J. law firm Legome & Associates, LLC, filed the fraud lawsuit June 10 at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of Shanti Yoga Shala, LLC.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff entered into a two-year, and 45-day lease agreement with the defendant, Jerry Fisher, of Philadelphia, beginning in November 2009 and ending in December 2011, for a property at 240-242 N. 3rd St.

The plan was for Larry and Shiya Mangel to operate a yoga studio at the premises, a business that requires indoor temperatures to remain in the high 70s for a certain number of hours throughout the day.

In October 2010, the lawsuit states, Larry Mangel reminded his landlord that as a yoga studio, it was necessary to keep temperatures within these parameters. The reminder came after nearly a year of experiencing a “consistent draft” at the business, causing the heat to be insufficient, and preventing clients from returning for yoga classes.

As a direct result of the draft, the yoga studio lost more than half of its client base, the complaint states.

Prior to the execution of the least, the suit states, the landlord had told his tenant that the electric bill would be in the range of $250 per month, a figure that turned out to be underestimated.

The suit states that one of the two heat pumps on the property ran “excessively high,” which caused the utility bill to run higher than initially expected. The pumps were replaced in January 2011, which caused a “substantial decrease in the monthly electric bills.”

The complaint states that the plaintiff has been “severely harmed as a result of the understatement of the electric bills, including, but not limited to, paying an excessive amount for electricity per month, and a loss of its client base.”

The complaint contains counts of breach of contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.

For each count, the plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant as determined by the court, including compensatory damages for defendant’s intentional misrepresentations, punitive damages, and court costs and related fees.

The plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. The case awaits listing.

The case number is 110600704.

More News