Brandywine Village Associates v. Carlino East Brandywine LP

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 23-2457 ________________ BRANDYWINE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, Appellant v. CARLINO EAST BRANDYWINE, LP; EAST BRANDYWINE TOWNSHIP; CHRISTINA B. WATTERS; KATHERINE M. KETTLETY, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK AND BEATRICE WATTERS; FRANK E. WATTERS, JR.; THOMAS R. WATTERS; GIANT COMPANY, LLC ________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 5-16-cv-05209) District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl ________________ Argued on May 7, 2024 Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 5, 2024)

Jeffry W. Duffy (Argued) Tyson Herrold Carl W. Hittinger Baker & Hostetler 1735 Market Street Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellant Theodore H. Jobes Fox Rothschild 2000 Market Street 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Pamela M. Tobin (Argued) Kaplin, Stewart, Meloff, Reiter & Stein Harvest Drive P.O. Box 3037 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Counsel for Appellees Carlino East Brandywine, LP, Christina B. Watters, Katherine M. Kettlety, In their Individual Capacities and as Co-Administrators of the Estates of Frank and Beatrice Watters, Frank E. Watters, Jr. and Thomas R. Watters

Warren E. Kampf (Argued) Buckley, Brion, McGuire & Morris W Market Street Suite 300 West Chester, PA 19382 Counsel for Appellee East Brandywine Township

Howard D. Geneslaw John D. Haggerty Jonathan S. Liss Kevin R. Reich (Argued) Gibbons One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Counsel for Appellee Giant Company, LLC

________________ OPINION* ________________

ROTH, Circuit Judge Brandywine Village Associates (BVA) sued several Defendants1 for actions relating to the development of a supermarket in Brandywine Township, Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed all claims and entered final judgment against BVA. 2 We will affirm the order of the District Court and put an end to this federal litigation.3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1367. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise de novo review of an appeal of a motion to dismiss, and we take as true all well-pleaded allegations.4 BVA’s Sherman Act claims were properly dismissed because BVA failed to allege antitrust injury and therefore lacks standing. Likewise, BVA’s pendant unfair competition claims were properly dismissed for failure to state an injury, and its abuse of process claims were properly dismissed for the same reason. BVA’s claims for specific performance of the Cross Easement Agreement are moot and were properly dismissed. Finally, BVA’s claims for breach of contract of the Cross Easement Agreement are estopped and were properly dismissed.5 We will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing all claims against Defendants with prejudice and enter final judgment against BVA.