# MOORE v. MCGEE

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · April 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10843964

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 11, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10843964

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
W. PRESTON MOORE, )
)
) 2:24-CV-1607
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
MICHAEL MCGEE; , )
)
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
Plaintiff W. Preston Moore’s complaint asserts civil rights, antitrust, and
breach-of-contract claims for alleged discriminatory and monopolistic practices by the
National Association of Realtors, the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors, and other real
estate boards. ECF 1. I have before me Defendant Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission’s
motion to dismiss. ECF 5.
I will grant the Commission’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice and with leave to
amend, because Mr. Moore’s complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim against
the Commission.1 The complaint only mentions the Commission for its “role[] in the
regulatory and political context of this matter[,]” but contains no allegations as to how the
Commission is personally involved in the alleged misconduct. ECF 1, p. 2.
, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (“A defendant in a civil rights action must
have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the
operation of ”).

1 While the Commission may be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, it is premature
to dismiss on this basis because whether Eleventh Amendment immunity applies might turn
on what, if any, allegations are in an amended complaint against the Commission, and what
type of relief is sought.
As to the other defendants named in the complaint, it has been past 90 days since the
complaint was filed, but there is no indication on the docket that service of the summons and
complaint has been made on these defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 4(m), I will extend the time for service for 30 days. Mr. Moore must file executed proofs
of service or executed waivers of service as to the other defendants in the next 30 days;
otherwise, the claims against the remaining defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.
In short, Mr. Moore’s claims against the Commission are DISMISSED without

prejudice. Mr. Moore is free to amend his complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies. Any
such amended complaint must be filed by April 25, 2025. He must also file executed proofs
of service or executed waivers of service as to the other defendants by May 12, 2025.2

Dated: April 11, 2025

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan
United States District Judge

cc:
W. Preston Moore
1047 Shawnee Ridge Drive
Cheswick, PA 15204

2 I would note that the complaint here has several complex claims, including antitrust claims.
I would also note that in Mr. Moore’s last filing, he reiterated the importance and magnitude
of this case to him, and the public at large. In light of this, it seems like Mr. Moore might
benefit from retaining a lawyer to represent him. Put differently, if I were to engage in a
complicated real estate transaction, I would hire a realtor to represent me. Hiring a lawyer
to bring a federal antitrust lawsuit is no different. If Mr. Moore does hire a lawyer, I will
allow the lawyer to file an amended complaint, and provide time for the lawyer to properly
serve all of the defendants.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10843964. Public record. Not legal advice.