(CN) - A
Pennsylvania fire marshal must face claims that he helped a man evict his
mother with 24 hours' notice, seal her locks and put her in a nursing home, a
federal judge ruled.
Camilla Evans had
resided and rented a property in Emsworth, Pa., for 50 years when the local
fire marshal gave her 24 hours to vacate the premises, according to the
complaint.
The
eviction allegedly sprang from a family dispute over the distribution of an
estate.
Evans
said her son and daughter-in-law, David and Judith Evans, the lawful owners of
the property at the time, had tapped the marshal to evict her. Though
the trio tried to commit Evans to a nursing home on the basis of incompetence,
their efforts proved unsuccessful, the complaint states.
David
and Judith ultimately drilled in the locks to the home, leaving Camilla Evans
and her daughter, Camilla Conners, unable to retrieve their possessions, and
forcing them to live in a hotel since November 2012, according to the
complaint.
The
mother and daughter later sued David, Judith, the borough and the marshal in
federal court, claiming that they unlawfully seized and condemned Evans'
property pursuant to an alleged custom or policy.
The
complaint asserts claims for constitutional violations and due process
deprivations under the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments, as well as numerous
state-law claims for conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
conversion, trespass and invasion of privacy against the individual defendants.
U.S.
District Judge Arthur Schwab refused to dismiss any part of the complaint last
week for failure to state a claim.
Though
the ruling gives only the last name of the fire marshal, a borough website
states his full name as Michael Adams.
Schwab
held that the complaint does "raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elements" and
"provides adequate facts to establish 'how, when, and where,'" as set
forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly in
2007.
The
complaint also shows a "plausible claim for relief," as required by
the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2009,
Schwab ruled. "Viewed in light of the foregoing pleading standards, this
court finds that the allegations of the complaint, when taken as true, allow
the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the
conduct and misconduct alleged, and that the complaint meets the standards as
enunciated in Twombly and Iqbal," Schwab
wrote.
After
discovery, the defendants may raise the issues set forth in their motions to
dismiss in a motion for summary judgment, the ruling states.
