The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendants' motions to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, we deny the motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Nova Design Build, Inc. ("Nova") is a company that provides architectural and engineering services. Plaintiff Annex Builders, Inc. ("Annex") is allegedly an affiliate of Nova that offers construction services to Nova's clients. In March 2006, Defendant Grace Hotels, LLC ("Grace") allegedly contacted Nova and invited Nova to make a proposal concerning the design and construction of a Holiday Inn Express ("Hotel") in Waukegan, Illinois ("Project"). Defendant Mukesh Bheda ("Bheda") is allegedly a member and manager of Grace. Plaintiffs claim that Grace provided Nova with a generic prototype of the design for the Project. Nova then allegedly submitted a proposal for the Project and Grace orally promised that Annex would be awarded the construction contract for the Project. After revisions of Nova's proposal, the parties allegedly entered into an agreement concerning Nova's services on the Project ("Agreement"). The Agreement also allegedly provided that Nova's designs and drawings would remain the property of Nova.
Plaintiffs allege that Grace requested additional work from Nova not contemplated in the Agreement and certain revisions in the Project design. Nova allegedly completed the necessary drawings and designs and in June 2006, they were submitted to the City of Waukegan ("City") to obtain the necessary permits. The drawings and designs allegedly all bore a statement indicating that they were the exclusive property of Nova.
According to Plaintiffs, after the submission, Grace removed Nova from the contact list for the City on matters concerning permits for the Project. The City allegedly requested revisions in the design of the Project and Nova was allegedly only able to respond to the requests after Grace forwarded the City's requests. In September 2006, Annex allegedly submitted a bid to build the Hotel. Grace allegedly advised Nova that Grace would seek competitive bids and Grace refused to give Annex the opportunity to meet lower bids. Plaintiffs assert that, under the terms of the Agreement, the failure by the parties to reach an accord concerning a construction contract for the Project released Nova from any further design obligations. Nova allegedly requested payment at that juncture and Grace refused to pay Nova. Nova allegedly then indicated that it would not provide any further services to Grace and Grace allegedly threatened to withhold all payments owed to Nova if Nova did not agree to reduce the payment amount. Plaintiffs allege that Nova was ultimately forced to accept $18,000 for the $28,000 that Grace owed to Nova.
In October 2006, the City allegedly issued a construction permit based upon Nova's designs and drawings. Defendant Capital Construction LLC ("Capital") then allegedly submitted a bid for the construction of the Hotel. Defendant Jeff Schmitz ("Schmitz") is allegedly a principal of Capital. According to Plaintiffs, Capital was able to provide the requisite drawings for the construction at a very low cost by misappropriating Nova's designs and drawings. Grace then allegedly removed Nova from the City's file as the architect of record and Grace solicited Lyons Design Group Inc. ("Lyons Design"), which is allegedly controlled by Defendant Adam Lyons ("Lyons"), to modify Nova's architectural plans and drawings and submit them as the drawings of Lyons Design. Grace also allegedly hired Defendant Robert Walz ("Walz"), an engineer, to copy Nova's structural plans and drawings and submit them as his own. Walz then allegedly submitted the designs to the City in July 2007. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants all participated in the above scheme, which allowed Capital to underbid Annex for the construction contract, and Capital was subsequently awarded the construction contract for the Hotel.
Plaintiffs brought the instant action and include in their complaint copyright infringement claims brought against Grace, Capital, Schmitz, Bheda, Walz, Lyons Design, and Lyons under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Count I), a claim seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Count II), a breach of contract claim brought against Grace based upon the obligations owed to Nova under the Agreement (Count III), a breach of contract claim brought against Grace based upon the obligations owed to Annex (Count IV), misappropriation claims brought against Grace, Walz, Lyons Design, and Capital (Count V), Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IDTPA"), 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. claims brought against Grace, Lyons Design, and Walz (Count VI), and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage ("TIPEA") claims brought against Capital, Schmitz, Walz, Lyons, and Lyons Design (Count VII). Plaintiffs have attached to the complaint a copy of a certificate of registration for Nova's copyright ("Nova Copyright") filed by Himanshu J. Modi ("Modi"). Defendants Grace, Bheda, Walz, Capital, and Schmitz (collectively referred to as "Grace Defendants") move to dismiss all claims brought against them in the complaint. Lyons and Lyons Design (collectively referred to as "Lyons Defendants") move to dismiss Counts I, VI, and VII.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must draw all reasonable inferences that favor the plaintiff, construe the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accept as true all well-pleaded facts and allegations in the complaint. Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002); Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1991). In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege the "operative facts" upon which each claim is based. Kyle v. Morton High Sch., 144 F.3d 448, 454-55 (7th Cir. 1998); Lucien v. Preiner, 967 F.2d 1166, 1168 (7th Cir. 1992). A plaintiff is required to include allegations in the complaint that "plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a'speculative level'" and "if they do not, the plaintiff pleads itself out of court." E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007)(quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007)). Under the current notice pleading standard in federal courts a plaintiff need not "plead facts that, if true, establish each element of a'cause of action....'" See Sanjuan v. Amer. Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994)(stating that "[a]t this stage the plaintiff receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint" and that "[m]atching facts against legal elements comes later"). The plaintiff need not allege all of the facts involved in the claim and can plead conclusions. Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002); Kyle, 144 F.3d at 455. However, any conclusions pled must "'provide the defendant with at least minimal notice of the claim,'" Kyle, 144 F.3d at 455(quoting Jackson v. Marion County, 66 F.3d 151, 153-54 (7th Cir. 1995)), and the plaintiff cannot satisfy federal pleading requirements merely "by attaching bare legal conclusions to narrated facts which fail to outline the bases of [his] claims." Perkins, 939 F.2d at 466-67. The Seventh Circuit has explained that "[o]ne pleads a'claim for relief' by briefly describing the events." Sanjuan, 40 F.3d at 251; Nance v. Vieregge, 147 F.3d 589, 590 (7th Cir. 1998)(stating that "[p]laintiffs need not plead facts or legal theories; it is enough to set out a claim for relief").
I. Grace Defendants' Motion
Grace Defendants move to dismiss all claims ...