Liles Parker Pllc v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
This text of Liles Parker Pllc v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Liles Parker Pllc v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
10 LILES PARKER PLLC, 11 No. 11-cv-1821 (BJR) Plaintiff 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS COUNT II OF THE FIRST 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT HARVEST BANK OF MARYLAND 14
15 Defendant.
16 __________________________________________ 17
18 Before the court is Defendant Harvest Bank of Maryland’s (“Defendant”) Motion to 19 Dismiss Count II of the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9.). Having reviewed the motion, 20 the opposition, and the reply thereto, as well as the relevant case law, the court hereby finds and 21 rules as follows. 22
23 This case involves a fee dispute between a law firm and its former client. Plaintiff Liles
24 Parker PLLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant breached the terms of the parties’ Engagement 25 Letter. Plaintiff seeks $101,417.96 in damages, plus interest and costs.
ORDER-1 Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: (1) Count I—Breach of Contract; and (2) Count 1 II—Quantum Meruit. Defendant moves to dismiss the quantum meruit claim, asserting that such 2
3 claims can only exist in the absence of a written agreement between the parties and when equity
4 renders it unjust for one party to retain money paid, or to not pay for services rendered. (Dkt. No. 5 9 at 1.). Here, Plaintiff alleges the existence of a written agreement and incorporates the 6 allegation into Count II. Id. at 1-2. 7 Plaintiff counters that the quantum meruit claim is alleged in the alternative to the breach 8 of contract claim, and that such a pleading is consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil 9
10 Procedure. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1 citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3).). Plaintiff argues that in the event he
11 is unable to establish that a valid contract exists, he would be entitled to prosecute the unjust
12 enrichment claim. However, Defendant answered Count I of the Amended Complaint (on the 13 same day that it filed is reply to the instant motion) and admitted the existence of a valid contract 14 between the parties. (Dkt. No. 12 at 1.). 15 In light of Defendant’s admission, the court will dismiss Count II of the First Amended 16 Complaint. See Harrington v. Trotman, 983 A.2d 342, 346-47 (D.C. 2009) (homeowner could 17
18 not recover damages against contractor on unjust enrichment theory where parties’ relationship is
19 governed by written agreement); Schiff v. American Ass’n of Retired Persons, 697 A.2d 1193,
20 1194 (D.C. 1997) (“[T]here can be no claim for unjust enrichment when an express contract 21 exists between the parties.”). 22 Based on the foregoing, Count II of the First Amended Complaint is hereby 23
ORDER-2 DISMISSED. 1 SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2012. 2
4 A Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 5 U.S. District Court Judge
ORDER-3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Liles Parker Pllc v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liles-parker-pllc-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corp-dcd-2012.