Free Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State Claim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 13 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 3
HQ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CITY OF TACOMA, )
Plaintiff, ) .
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-62 GMS
WORLDGATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC, )
Defendant. ) I
ORDER
1. On February 4, 2005, the plaintiff, City of Tacoma ("Tacoma"), filed the above-captioned
lawsuit against WorldGate Communications, Inc. ("WorldGate"), alleging breach of contract,
breach of faith, and unjust enrichment.
2. On February 25, 2005, Wor1dGate moved to dismiss Tacoma’s unjust enrichment claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Wor1dGate contends that dismissal is appropriate because the
relationship between the parties was governed by a express contract and, as such, Tacoma
is not entitled to equitable relief (D.I. 5, at 2).
3. Conversely, Tacoma asserts that it is not precluded from alleging alternative theories of relief
in the form of breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(e)(2). Tacoma, however, acknowledges "the long recognized principle
that a plaintiff cannot recover on an unjust enrichment theory where the parties’ relationship
is governed by an express contract." Liafail, Inc. v. Learning 2000, Inc., C.A. Nos. 01-599-
GMS, 01-678-GMS, 2002 WL 31667861, at * 13 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2002).

Case 1 :05-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 13 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 2 of 3
4. After having considered the parties’ submissions on the issue (D.l. 4, 5, 7, 8) and the
applicable law, the court concludes that it is appropriate to dismiss Tacoma’s unjust
enrichment claim, because Tacoma has failed to plead a factual basis upon which relief may
be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6); see also Synesiou v. DesignToMarket, Inc., C.A.
No. 01-5358-GMS, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5687, at *12-16 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2002).
5. "The law in the Third Circuit is clear that equitable remedies are not available when a valid
contract exists." Sungard Recovery Services, L.P. v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., C.A. No.
02-3845-GMS, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22256, at *6 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2002). In the present
case, both parties acknowledge that there was a valid contract between them. (D.l. 1, 111] 8-
11; D.l. 5, at 2). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)(2) permits plaintiffs to plead
alternative theories of relief, the fact that the federal rules permit alternative pleading does
not mean that alternatively plead claims may not be dismissed if they fail to state a claim.
As stated above, the finding of an enforceable contract defeats the validity of an unjust
enrichment claim. See Sungard, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22256, at *6; see also Halstead v.
Motorcycle Safety Found., Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (unjust enrichment
claim must fail when a valid contract exists); Matter of Penn Center T ransp. Co. , 831 F.2d
1221, 1230 (3d Cir. 1987) (a plaintiff cannot maintain an unjust enrichment claim when an
express contract existed on the same subject). Thus, because the parties agree that a valid
contract exists here, Tacoma cannot maintain a claim for unjust enrichment.
2

Case 1 :05-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 13 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 3 of 3
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. WorldGate’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Claim for Unj ust Enrichment (Count III),
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (D.I. 4) is GRANTED.
2. Count IH of Tacoma’s complaint is dismissed.
Dated: September 30 , 2005
UNI E S TES D TRI GE
F I L E D
SEP 3 0 2005
u.s. DISTRICT counr
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
3