COATESVILLE AREA SCHOOL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. DISTRICT 5 : CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 15-01018 RHOADS & SINON, LLP and i JAMES E. ELLISON, ESQUIRE : CIVIL ACTION David W. Brown, Esquire, on behalf of the Plaintiff George C. Zumbano, Esquire, on behalf of Rhoads & Sinon, LLP © Daniel T. Brier, Esquire, on behalf of James E. Ellison, Esquire ORDER OF COURT 2 AND NOW, this 11aay of August, 2015, upon consideration of Preliminary Objections filed by Defendant, Rhoads & Sinon, LLP, and Defendant, James E. Ellison, Esquire, to Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiffs Response thereto, and oral argument held on August 14, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that both Preliminary Objections are GRANTED, the Complaint is STRICKEN in its entirety, and Exhibits P-6, P-7, P-8, P-10, P-12(a) and P-12(b) are STRICKEN with prejudice.’ Plaintiff is given twenty (20) days to file an Amended Complaint without the aforementioned exhibits. BY THE COURT: ey R. Sommer ' This matter comes before us as a result of Preliminary Objections filed by both Defendants against the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Coatesville Area School District.The Plaintiff filed a response and the matter was briefed. Following the oral argument, this matter is ready for a determination The Complaint is a confusing compilation of some 217 separate allegations and twelve exhibits, some with sub-parts, attached to the Complaint. Allegations were not directed to any particular count, and seem to contain a litany of broad-brush opinions critical of decisions made by the previous School Board. We tried to find a way to salvage portions of the Complaint, but given the manner in which it was drafted, that was not possible. At its heart, the Complaint seems to allege that the Defendants, who were the prior Solicitor for the School District, breached their contract of employment by not billing in accordance with that contract and/or committed legal malpractice by giving either inappropriate or incorrect advice on four specific issues designated as the Solar Initiative, the Como Contract, the Cell Phone Purchase, and the Tax Lien Sale. Despite this apparent simplicity, Plaintiff created four counts sounding in a breach of a fiduciary duty, replevin, conversion, and legal malpractice. Interestingly, while the bulk of allegations allege that the Defendants either overbilled or improperly billed time under the contract, Plaintiff's Complaint contains no count for a breach of contract. Further, there are numerous allegations, well over 50 by our count, which plead impertinent matter and are inappropriate for inclusion in a Complaint. Plaintiff seems to rely upon exhibits which are not contracts but rather appear to be opinions and findings of other non-parties who examined the actions of the Coatesville Area School District on a variety of issues. It is difficult to understand how a Defendant in this action can fashion a responsive pleading to an allegation that basically states, “please look at the exhibit and you will see that some other lawyer thinks the Defendant committed malpractice.” Understandably, the Defendants have demurred. The scope of judicial review when considering preliminary objections depends on the issues being raised by the objecting party. In this case, both Defendants have raised numerous objections. In those cases where the objector challenges the legal sufficiency or the factual specificity of the pleading, the assertion of the inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter or failure to conform to law or rule of court, such as many of those raised by defendant's counsel for Rhoads & Sinon, LLP.., the court may only examine the averments in the challenged pleading and any documents or exhibits attached thereto. See, Clausi v. Stuck, 74 A.3d 242 (Pa. Super. 2013). ‘As for the appropriate standard of review when considering preliminary objections contesting legal sufficiency of a pleading, all material facts as set forth in the pleading and any exhibits attached to it, are admitted as true as well as all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from those facts. . See, Friedman v. Corbett, 72 A3d 255 (Pa. 2013). 2Finally, when considering those objections which raise the insufficient specificity of the Complaint under Rule 1028(a)(3), this court must ascertain whether the facts alleged are sufficiently specific to enable the responding party to prepare a defense to the claims alleged. See, United Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 950 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Cmwith. 2008). We tried to examine the Complaint as a whole and not simply focus on isolated sections. We attempted to read the individual averments in context with all of the allegations. But, it is very clear that the Defendants are not truly placed on notice as to the specific allegations of wrongdoing. It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant overbilled or improperly billed for services. It must show in the Complaint those instances in which it alleges that the overbilling or improper billing occurred. The Plaintiff has each and every one of the bills submitted for payment. Plaintiff cannot say that it doesn't have enough information to be specific. And, it is not up to the Defendants to guess about which bills or to which instance the Plaintiff refers. Further, it is not enough to merely say that it would like the return of equipment that belongs to it. Plaintiff needs to outline what equipment and under what theory it believes that that equipment belongs to the Plaintiff. We note that the equipment sought by Plaintiff in one allegation was, by Plaintiff's admission in another allegation, sold to one of the Defendants. The allegations, on their face, are overly-broad with insufficient contentions, including, for example, such as an attorney with experience failed to meet the standards of the profession based upon based on a non-expert report attached as an exhibit. They are clearly too generalized and need to be stricken. There were several legal challenges raised to the Complaint which.are not being addressed at this time. For example, Defendants raise as a demurrer that the Plaintiff (the current Board of the Coatesville Area School District) is seeking to undo contracts entered into by the previous Board of the Coatesville Area School District. We are not ruling in finality on those because we are giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to redraft the Complaint into what appears to be two demonstrable counts - breach of contract and legal malpractice.