United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
August 19, 2010
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL GROUP
Name of Assigned Judge Marvin Aspen Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Presently before us is Starr's motion to dismiss (8) the complaint for failure to state a claim. We grant the motion and dismiss the Complaint. ICG may file an Amended Complaint on or before September 3, 2010. It is so ordered. The status/ruling date set for 9/9/10 is stricken.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
(Reserved for use by the Court)
Plaintiff International Capital Group, LLC ("ICG") filed a two-count Complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Defendant Ed Starrs. Presently before us is Starrs's motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim.
At issue is whether ICG has sufficiently alleged the breach element of its breach of contract claim. Starrs argues that ICG is required to identify a particular contract provision that was breached in order to satisfy the federal pleading standard. (Mem. at 2; Reply at 2.) ICG counters that it need not identify a particular contract provision that was breached in order to plead breach of contract. (Resp. at 3.) This Court has come out both ways on this issue. Compare Gandhi v. Sitara Capital Mgmt., LLC, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1016 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (requiring plaintiff to plead specific provisions) and Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, No. 08 C 5330, 2010 WL 2330334, at * 2 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2010) (same) with Facility Wizard Software, Inc. v. Southeastern Technical Servs., LLC, 647 F. Supp. 2d 938, 950 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (not requiring plaintiff to plead specific provisions) and Urlacher v. Dreams, Inc., No. 09 C 6591, 2010 WL 669449, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2010) (same).
We agree with ICG that a plaintiff is not required to identify a specific contract provision that was breached in order to plead breach of contract under the federal pleading standard, but a plaintiff must still plead enough facts to establish a breach, for example, the existence of some unsatisfied obligation. ICG has not done so. ICG alleges in relevant part that it "agreed to lend Starrs $750,000," (Compl. ¶ 7), and later "demanded that Starrs repay the $750,000," (id. ¶ 11), but that "Starrs has not repaid the $750,000," (id. ¶ 10). However, ICG does not allege that Starrs is obligated under the contract to repay the $750,000, and therefore his alleged failure to do so does not state a claim for breach of contract.
Similarly, the Complaint fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment because it does not allege that Starrs has any duty to repay the $750,000. See Martis v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 388 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1025, 905 N.E.2d 920, 928 (3d Dist. 2009) (stating that a plaintiff must allege an unsatisfied duty of the defendant in order to state a claim for unjust enrichment); see also Compl. Ex. A § 19.1.
Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the Complaint. ICG may file an Amended Complaint on or before September 3, 2010. It is so ordered.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.