PHILADELPHIA – A major financial dispute between collectors of rare “Magic: The Gathering” playing cards that is centered on fraud accusations has had some of the counts stripped from its complaint in a Philadelphia federal court.
Michael Ruggiero of Morganville, N.J., first filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 20, 2018, versus Brian Nocenti of Kennett Square and a John Doe, alleging that they breached their duty of good faith and fair dealings.
Ruggiero argued that on May 29, 2018, he suffered from significant financial loss and the loss of irreplaceable collection of “Magic: The Gathering” playing cards, as a result of the wrongful conduct of the defendant.
Ruggiero alleged Nocenti agreed to sell his rare card collection at a total contract price of $177,415 payable in three years, with request for $70,000 due on the first year.
The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant schemed to sell the cards at a higher price to another buyer even though they had a valid contract, according to the complaint.
In so doing, Ruggiero alleged that Nocenti both reneged on the contract and refunded the plaintiff the amount of $40,000 that he had paid to date.
The plaintiff holds Nocenti and Doe responsible, because the defendants allegedly caused plaintiff to sell his own irreplaceable collection to finance the agreement.
Further, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff failed to meet the timeline to pay $70,000, despite evidence of exchange of messages with defendant confirming June 26, 2018 as the deadline for initial payment, according to the complaint.
Last fall, Nocenti filed a motion for summary judgment – claiming Ruggiero was mistaken in thinking there was a contract for him to buy Nocenti’s cards for $177,415, while Ruggiero responded with a counter-motion for summary judgment that a contract had indeed been agreed upon for the sale of the cards.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel H. Slomsky further analyzed the proceedings and decided a contract was indeed in play.
“Giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences in the record, a reasonable jury could find a contract was formed between the parties. The record reflects that the parties maintained the Excel spreadsheet with the list of Magic Cards in question and communicated over the course of approximately one year about their ’agreement’ and ’deal,” Slomsky said.
“Plaintiff’s allegations that this spreadsheet and these communications were governed by an agreement is plausible. While defendant is correct that the record does not contain a formal, written agreement with the parties’ signatures, the record contains communications and deposition testimony from which a reasonable jury could infer that the parties intended to enter into a contract.”
Such evidence consisted of discussion of goods to be transacted, payment and payment plans for the goods, according to Slomsky. As a result, Slomsky partially granted Nocenti’s motion to remove some, but not all, of the counts from Ruggiero’s complaint.
“Defendant’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court will grant defendant’s motion as it pertains to Counts II (Unjust Enrichment), IV (Contract Implied in Law), and V (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), and will deny defendant’s motion as it pertains to Counts I (Breach of Contract), III (Contract Implied in Fact), VI (Promissory Estoppel), VII (Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement), and VIII (Violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL),” Slomsky said.
Therefore, the counts pertaining to breach of contract, contract implied in fact, promissory estoppel, fraud/fraud in the inducement and violation of the UTPCPL, were retained in the litigation, while the rest were dismissed.
The plaintiff is represented by Alexandra S. Jacobs, Michael Justin Fekete and John J. Levy of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, in Cherry Hill, N.J.
The defendants are represented by Christopher James Amentas of Armstrong & Carosella, in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-03047
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com