PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia marble and tile distributor is seeking more than $190,000 it says a client owes them in invoiced costs for materials and installation related to a resort construction project in Myrtle Beach, S.C., whereas the defendants say the allegations are baseless.
Fotis Tsakiris and Marble & Tile Outlet, LLC of Philadelphia filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 16 versus Alinea Capital Group, LLC and Abraham Nechemia, also of Philadelphia, Isaac Nechemia and Ehoud Shohad of Cherry Hill, N.J. and 701 South Ocean Blvd., LLC of Myrtle Beach, S.C.
According to the lawsuit, the defendants visited the Marble & Tile Outlet store, owned and operated by the plaintiffs, and purchased $606,920.65 worth of tile and installation materials to be used at the Bali Bay Resort in Myrtle Beach. The defendants agreed to establish the scope of the project, pay for the materials and installation, supervise and oversee the project and be responsible for the environmental conditions surrounding the installation to ensure proper tile adhesion, the suit says.
However, the plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to provide proper backing material for the tile, allowed water to destroy tiled rooms, failed to properly level the flooring, provided improper directions and directives regarding tile installation and failure to provide the proper environmental conditions allowing for successful installation of the tile. In addition, the defendants have allegedly not paid their invoices.
“Defendants have responded to their receipt of the outstanding invoices by asserting that they would pay $35,000 to satisfy the entire amount owed, justifying their decision on the assertion that this amount would be sufficient to be profitable to plaintiffs, despite their agreement to the contrary. Plaintiffs rejected accepting $35,000 in satisfaction of the full invoiced amount,” the suit explains, adding the defendants owe $190,366.25 to the plaintiffs.
In new matter filed Dec. 18, the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ allegations and countered that the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, were barred by a number of statutory doctrines and the Uniform Commercial Code for failure to produce a written agreement, among other reasons.
Similarly, a response returned from the plaintiffs on Jan. 8 denies the new matter as conclusions of law and demands strict proof of them at trial.
For counts of breach of contract, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, fraud, conversion and violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, the plaintiffs are seeking damages of $190,366.25, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, punitive damages and such other relief that the Court deems fair and just.
The plaintiffs are represented by Glen D. Kimball and Jasmine C. MonteCarlo of O’Connor Kimball, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by William E. Viss of Sirlin Lesser & Benson, also in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 181001932
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com