PHILADELPHIA – Citing insufficiency of pleading, the Philadelphia Housing Authority is seeking to strike multiple paragraphs from wrongful death litigation connected to a fatal apartment house fire which took place in January 2022 and caused the deaths of 12 people.
The Philadelphia-based firm of Kline & Specter represents the families of 33 year-old Rosalee McDonald, 15 year-old Destiny McDonald, 16 year-old Quintien Tate-McDonald, 3 year-old Janiyah Roberts and 18 year-old Quinsha White, and brought suit against the Philadelphia Housing Authority and Enor International, Inc., of La Puente, Calif.
“This terrible tragedy resulting in precious loss of life could and should have been avoided. After a lengthy ATF investigation, ATF report and our own independent investigation, we are now prepared to move forward, seeking not only compensation, but accountability,” said Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, PC, who represents the five victims among the 12 people who perished in the building owned by PHA.
The firm also represents three others killed in the fire for whom complaints are forthcoming, while fellow Philadelphia-based attorneys Jordan Strokovsky of Strokovsky, LLC and Kevin Mincey of Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross, represent the remaining victims.
The lawsuit alleged that PHA was responsible for the fire and deaths for several reasons, including that it knew its four-bedroom apartment was overcrowded with 14 people, constituting a safety hazard. Additionally, the housing authority was responsible for ensuring the apartment complied with all codes and regulations.
However, the suit said, the apartment did not have a fire escape, fire extinguishers, hard-wiring and tamper-proof smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, an early detection system or a working fire suppression system.
The tragic incident began when a child used a Techno Torch lighter to set fire to a Christmas tree on the second floor, trapping 13 people on the second and third floors. The lighter was a product of defendant Enor International, Inc.
In reference to the fatal fire and its aftermath, PHA Executive Vice-President Nichole L. Tillman offered the following statement.
“Since the tragic fire last year, PHA has worked diligently to support the impacted families in ensuring that the surviving family members were supported and rehoused. PHA also partnered closely with our residents on the importance of fire safety and preventing fires at our developments. We recognize that education and partnership with our residents are key,” Tillman said.
“Accordingly, PHA has actively engaged with the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) leaders and residents all year to educate, remind and reinforce the importance of fire safety and the critical role residents play in ensuring safety. This included: Meetings, fire safety literature and fire drills as well encouraging residents to have in place an emergency safety plan for their families. Safety of our residents remains paramount for all of us at PHA and we will continue to collaborate with our residents, who we are privileged to serve, to educated and inform them about fire safety and prevention.”
UPDATE
PHA filed preliminary objections on April, looking to strike Paragraphs 21 (“including, but not limited to” averment), 21(l), 21(m), 24(r), 24(s), 24(v-ff), 79 and 84 for failure to conform to law/rule of court and for insufficient specificity.
“Numerous averments in plaintiffs’ complaint do not comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a), Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(f) and Pennsylvania’s pleading standards. Paragraph 21 of the complaint impermissibly asserts the phrase ‘including but not limited to.’ Paragraph 21 does not comply with Pennsylvania’s pleading standards,” the objections stated.
“Subparagraph 21(l) the complaint impermissibly seeks ‘all damages allowable under the Wrongful Death Act and its interpreting case law.’ This averment is impermissibly vague and ambiguous as it does not state the specific ‘allowable’ damages being sought nor does it identify the ‘interpreting case law.’ Under Pennsylvania law, plaintiffs is required to specifically and expressly identify the damages being sought. Subparagraph 21(l) does not comply with Pennsylvania’s pleading standards. Subparagraph 21(m) the complaint impermissibly seeks ‘all damages allowable under the Survival Act and its interpreting case law.’ This averment is impermissibly vague and ambiguous as it does not state the specific ‘allowable’ damages and the ‘interpreting case law.’ Under Pennsylvania law, plaintiffs is required to specifically and expressly identify the damages being sought. Subparagraph 21(m) does not comply with Pennsylvania’s pleading standards.”
Further objections explained that other sections of Paragraph 24 “impermissibly assert unspecified and unidentified violations of [numerous] codes and ordinances,” but that the plaintiffs fail to identify the specific sections of each code that plaintiffs claim PHA violated, which is required under Pennsylvania law.
“Paragraph 79 of the complaint avers ‘the full measure of damages’ and damages recoverable under ‘decisional law interpreting said Act.’ Paragraph 84 avers ‘all damages available’ and all damages under ‘decisional law interpreting said Act.’ These averments are impermissible under Pennsylvania law and lack the requisite specificity. Paragraphs 79 and 84 should be stricken,” the objections continued.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages in the suit.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas R. Kline, Aaron Dunbar, Sherrell Dandy, and Frank Mangiaracina of Kline & Specter, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Walter H. Swayze III and Chester F. Darlington of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in Wayne, plus Andrew R. Benedict and Joanne R. Rubinsohn of BBC Law, in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230301653
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com