Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Global Technology & Trading, Inc. v. Satyam Computer Services Limited

December 9, 2009

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY & TRADING, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND MANOJ JAIN, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED, AN INDIAN CORPORATION DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James B. Zagel

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

In their complaint, Plaintiffs Global Technology & Trading, Inc., and Manoj Jain ("Jain") allege that Shailesh Shah ("Shah"), executive vice president of Defendant Satyam Computer Services Limited, approached Jain "in order to facilitate the introduction of Bridge Strategy Group[,]" a management consulting company. On August 15, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted to Defendant a document titled "Project Agreement: Supporting Acquisition of Bridge Strategy" (the "Project Agreement"). Plaintiffs explain that the Project Agreement "outlin[ed] the contractual rights of each party and detail[ed] the terms of payment and scope of employment." Eight days later, Plaintiffs submitted to Defendant the final version of the Project Agreement. The parties then negotiated Plaintiffs' fee and agreed on $600,000, to be paid within thirty days of the closing of a deal between Defendant and Bridge Strategy Group. Plaintiffs claim that between April 2007 and October 2008, Shah repeatedly assured them that they would be compensated for their services.

Beginning in April 2007 and continuing over the next year, Plaintiffs provided consulting services to Defendant. Among other services, Plaintiffs prepared documents, reviewed terms and conditions, and negotiated a possible acquisition. On April 4, 2008, Plaintiffs facilitated a final acquisition agreement between Defendant and Bridge Strategy Group. Plaintiffs maintain that they were never paid the agreed-upon sum of $600,000 in return for their services.

On August 26, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging the following four counts: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) quantum meruit; and (4) fraud. Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires that I analyze the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and not the factual merits of the case. Autry v. Northwest Premium Servs., Inc., 144 F.3d 1037, 1039 (7th Cir.1998). I must take all facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of Plaintiffs. Caldwell v. City of Elwood, 959 F.2d 670, 671 (7th Cir.1992). Plaintiffs, for their part, must do more than solely recite the elements for a violation; they must plead with sufficient particularity so that their right to relief is more than a mere conjecture. Bell Atl., Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiffs must plead their facts so that, when accepted as true, they show the plausibility of their claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Plaintiffs must do more than plead facts that are "consistent with Defendants' liability" because that only shows the possibility, not the plausibility, of their entitlement to relief. Id. (internal quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Fraud

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' fraud claim should be dismissed on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to meet the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Rule 9(b) requires that a plaintiff "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud[,]" which includes the "who, what, when, where and how" of the fraud. DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990). In order to successfully plead a fraud claim, Plaintiffs must state "the identity of the person making the misrepresentation, the time, place, and content of the misrepresentation, and the method by which misrepresentation was communicated to [Plaintiffs]." Uni*Quality, Inc. v. Infotronx, Inc., 974 F.2d 918, 923 (7th Cir 1992). This heightened pleading requirement is intended "to minimize the extortionate impact that a baseless claim of fraud can have on a firm or an individual." Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. of New York v. Intercounty Nat. Title Ins. Co., 412 F.3d 745, 749 (7th Cir. 2005). It prevents frivolous fraud claims and requires a plaintiff to provide sufficient detail so that a groundless claim may be disposed of quickly . Id.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs claim that between April 2007 and October 2008 Shah repeatedly assured them that they would be compensated. This is the extent of the factual allegations supporting the fraud claim. Plaintiffs have successfully alleged the "who" and perhaps even the "what" necessary to satisfy Rule 9(b), although it must be noted that the complained-of "assurances" are arguably vague in nature. Plaintiffs do allege the "when," but it can hardly be said that an eighteen-month long time span is sufficiently particular. Moreover, Plaintiffs include no allegations as to the method by which the misrepresentations were made, information presumably within Plaintiffs' possession.*fn1 Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), and for this reason, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraud claim is granted.

B. Quantum Meruit

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for quantum meruit. To state a claim for quantum meruit, Plaintiffs must allege (1) its performance of a service for Defendant's benefit; (2) the service was performed non-gratuitously; (3) Defendant accepted the service; and (4) no contract for payment existed between the parties. Owen Wagener & Co. v. U.S. Bank, 697 N.E.2d 902, 908 (Ill. App. 1998). A party cannot recover in quantum meruit, a quasi-contract theory, when the parties' relations are governed by contract. Keck Garrett & Associates, Inc. v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 517 F.3d 476, 487 (7th Cir. 2008). Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim on the ground that Plaintiffs in Count III allege the existence of a contract with Defendant. Taking Plaintiffs' factual allegations as true, as I must at this stage, the quantum meruit claim fails. In their response, Plaintiffs maintain that they have pled their quantum meruit claim in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.