Doe Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Jane Doe and John Doe residing at , by way of Complaint against the Defendants, say:

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs are residents of the State of and are husband and wife.

3. Upon information and belief, the Defendants are residents of the State of and are also husband and wife. The Defendants are also the current owners of real property (i.e., a residential home) located at (hereinafter the Property).

THE CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE

4. On or about , the parties executed a contract for the purchase of the Property (hereinafter the Contract). Specifically, the Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the Property for a price of $. The closing was to take place on or about . A true copy of the Contract is appended hereto as Exhibit 1.

5. At or about the same time the Contract was executed the Plaintiffs paid a $ deposit to the Defendants (through their agents) with the deposit being held pending closing of title. Upon information and belief, said deposit was held (and is still being held) by the Defendants counsel.

6. A closing date was subsequently scheduled for , however, at the walkthrough inspection of the Property, the Plaintiffs discovered that the basement to the Property had flooded with resulting damage. The Plaintiffs demanded that necessary repairs be made and also set down a new closing date for with that date being made time of the essence.

7. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs also learned that the had indicated that the Defendants were not entitled to a continued certificate of occupancy because of outstanding items which needed repairs.

8. Additionally, the Plaintiffs then learned that a water system which was once operational was no longer working. The Plaintiffs also sought a credit for this malfunctioning system.

9. Finally, the Plaintiffs learned that there were remaining open building permits pertaining to the Defendants basement which was partially completed. The parties discussed two options pertaining to resolving the open permits; one, that the Plaintiffs would have the permits transferred into their names in order to complete the work and second, that the permits would be withdrawn with the Plaintiffs maintaining their ability in the future to re-apply for said permits.

10. The parties agreed that the Defendants would restore the basement to the condition it was in prior to the flooding and that the permits would be withdrawn. In fact, in a letter dated , the Defendants attorney specifically stated that the Defendants will complete the basement.

11. However, without notice and much to their shock and amazement, upon attending a walkthrough on , the Plaintiffs discovered that all the prior work and fixtures in the basement area had been removed and dismantled. The basement was no longer in a partially finished state and in fact it was not finished at all. The Plaintiffs demanded the issuance of either an escrow or credit which was rejected by the Defendants.

12. Because of the actions of the Defendants in refusing to abide by the terms of the Contract, or cooperate or deal in good faith, on , the Plaintiffs were left with no choice but to declare the Contract breached by the Defendants and the Plaintiffs also demanded the return of their $ deposit.

13. Despite the Plaintiffs compliance with the Contract provisions and being ready, willing and able to close, the Defendants refused to return the Plaintiffs deposit.

COUNT ONE: BREACH OF CONTRACT

14. As a result of the Defendants actions they have breached the Contract.

15. As a result of said breach, the Plaintiffs have been damaged.

16. The Plaintiffs damages includes their $ security deposit, along with out of pocket expenses totaling $ which pertained to such things as overnight mailings, wire transfer fees, funding fees, counsel fees paid to the Plaintiffs closing attorney, inspection fees, penalties paid to the Plaintiffs lender, and an application fee paid to the Plaintiffs lender.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants in the form of compensatory damages in the amount of $, plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit.

COUNT TWO: BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

17. The Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation made in the foregoing paragraphs 1-15 as if same were repeated at length herein.

18. Implied in every contract in the State of is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

19. The foregoing actions on the part of the Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which was implied in the Contract.

20. As a result of the Defendants foregoing breach, the Plaintiffs have been damaged as alleged above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

COUNT THREE: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

21. The Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation made in the foregoing paragraphs 1-19 as if same were repeated at length herein.

22. As a result of the Defendants actions, they have been unjustly enriched to the detriment of the Plaintiffs.

23. As a result of this unjust enrichment the Plaintiffs have been damaged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

The Plaintiffs in the within cause hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues raised in this matter.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

John Lawyer, Esq., is hereby designated as trial counsel in the within matter.

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify, pursuant to R. 4:5-1, that the matter in controversy in this action is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, no other action or arbitration is contemplated and no other parties must be joined in this action.