that Count V sets forth sufficient allegations to state a
claim for unconscionability, and the motion to dismiss is
CONCLUSION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Since the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal cause of
action is denied, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to
hear the federal claim. By virtue of the doctrine of pendent
jurisdiction, the Court will assert (at this juncture)
jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action
brought by the plaintiffs. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,
383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).
PETITION TO INTERVENE
Six individuals who were residents and owners of units in
the Development have sought leave to intervene in this action,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), as party plaintiffs. They have
attached a copy of their proposed complaint. This complaint
sets forth the same basic facts and legal theories of the
plaintiff Associations' amended complaint. In addition, the
potential intervenors seek leave to represent a class of all
persons who owned units in the Development during the period
between May 18, 1978, and May 18, 1982. They allege that the
class consists of more than 600 unit owners.
The defendants oppose the petition to intervene and present
a curious argument. They say that the intervenors need not
appear here because their interests are adequately represented
by the plaintiff Associations. Yet in their motion to dismiss,
they have argued that the Associations lack standing to bring
the amended complaint, because "any rights of recovery lie
with the individual unit owners, not with plaintiff
Condominium Associations . . ." (Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, at 1-2). The inconsistency of the defendants'
positions is apparent.
In any case, for the reasons stated above the plaintiff
Associations lack standing under the antitrust laws to sue for
money damages. However, the individuals themselves are not so
disabled. They can fill the gap left open by the Court's
ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and III.
Further, they meet the criteria set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P.
24(a), for intervention as of right. The petition to intervene
is granted, and the intervening plaintiffs are granted leave
to file their complaint. Of course, the Court has not yet
ruled upon whether the intervening plaintiffs may represent a
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts I
and III of the amended complaint, and is denied in all other
(2) The petition to intervene is granted, and the
intervening plaintiffs are granted leave to file their
(3) Defendants are to answer the plaintiffs' amended
complaint and the intervening plaintiffs' complaint within 21
(4) A status hearing is set for September 16, 1983, at 9:45
a.m. Parties are to present a proposed discovery schedule at
that time, specifying dates for the exchange of documents, the
propounding of interrogatories, and the taking of depositions.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.