Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, commenced this action on
February 18, 2009. An Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 22) was filed on June 15, 2009.2 Plaintiffs
allege in the Amended Complaint that Defendant, through its title agents, engaged in the scheme
described above as part of an ongoing racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Additionally, Plaintiffs claim Defendant
employed unfair or deceptive acts prohibited by the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act and
misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment, which stem from the RICO and UTPCPL
Currentlybefore the Court is Defendant Commonwealth Land’s Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed July 20, 2009 (Doc. No. 25).
Plaintiffs filed their Opposition in Response to Motion to Dismiss on August 24, 2009 (Doc. No.
26). On September 3, 2009, Commonwealth Land filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 28). On October 7, 2009, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion. For reasons
that follow, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
This case is one of manycases brought against title insurance companies in which allegations
are made of a pervasive pattern of overcharging for title insurance inconsistent with statutory rates.
The parties cite and discuss several certified class actions filed within the last few years in which
2Plaintiffs include Stephanie Coleman (“Plaintiff Coleman”) and Janelle Bowmer (“Plaintiff Bowmer”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Pl. Am. Compl., ¶8.) No class has been certified as of the filing of this Opinion.