Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00443/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00443-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bottom Line Recoveries LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lockheed Martin Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-00443-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Claim for 

Relief (Unjust Enrichment) of Amended Complaint, (Doc. 30). The Court will deny the 

Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff is an accounting consultant firm that offers services such as account 

payable auditing and recovery of payable mistakes. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2). Defendant is an 

international corporation engaged in the research, design, development, and 

manufacturing of advanced technology systems. (Doc. 1 ¶ 4; Doc. 24 ¶ 4). In July 2010, 

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Services Agreement under which Plaintiff agreed 

to identify opportunities for Defendant to recover credits, overpayments, and other 

payment errors made by Defendant’s suppliers. (Doc. 32 at 2; Doc. 30 at 1–2). In return, 

Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff 10% of the recovered amount. (Doc. 32 at 2; Doc. 30 at 

1–2). Both parties agree that the Services Agreement is binding, (Doc. 1 ¶ 25; Doc. 24 ¶ 

25), and that disputes arising under the Services Agreement are governed by Maryland 

Case 2:14-cv-00443-JAT Document 50 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

law, (Doc. 1 ¶ 13; Doc. 24 ¶ 13). However, the parties disagree on the number of 

payment errors that Plaintiff identified and accordingly disagree on the amount 

Defendant owes Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that it paid Plaintiff 10% of all of the 

payment errors that Defendant was able to recover. (Doc. 31 at 2). Plaintiff claims that 

Defendant still owes Plaintiff $1,511,628.67. (Doc. 32 at 2). 

 On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendant asserting two 

causes of action, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. (Doc. 1). On May 15, 2014, 

Defendant filed the instant motion requesting the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s unjust 

enrichment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Doc. 30). 

Plaintiff responded on May 30, 2014, (Doc. 32), and Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s 

response on June 9, 2013, (Doc. 34). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) 

for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory and (2) insufficient facts alleged 

under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 

(9th Cir. 1990). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint 

must meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so that the defendant 

has “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 

(1957)). 

 Although a complaint attacked for failure to state a claim does not need detailed 

factual allegations, the pleader’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief requires 

“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted). The factual 

allegations of the complaint must be sufficient to raise a right to relief above a 

speculative level. Id. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, 

of entitlement to relief. 

Case 2:14-cv-00443-JAT Document 50 Filed 12/04/14 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility 

exists if the pleader pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Plausibility does not 

equal “probability,” but plausibility requires more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant acted unlawfully. Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely 

consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and 

plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

 In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must construe the 

facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to the drafter of the complaint 

and the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. See Shwarz v. 

United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, courts do not have to 

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Papasan v. Allain, 478 

U.S. 265, 286 (1986). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 A. Choice of Law 

 A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the forum state’s choice 

of law rules to determine the controlling substantive law. Klaxon v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. 

Co. Inc., 313 U.S. 487, 495–96 (1941); see Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 

F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the District of 

Arizona, Arizona choice of law rules apply. Under Arizona law, a court will enforce a 

choice of law provision that the parties have contracted for unless doing so is “contrary to 

the fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest in the issue.” See Landi 

v. Arkules, 835 P.2d 458, 462 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). Here, the Services Agreement states 

that all conflicts arising under the Services Agreement are governed by Maryland law. 

(Doc. 1 ¶ 13; Doc. 24 ¶ 13). While Arizona has an interest in the issue, neither party has 

objected to using Maryland law and both parties repeatedly refer to Maryland law in the 

Case 2:14-cv-00443-JAT Document 50 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

motion, response, and reply at issue. Accordingly, the Court applies Maryland 

substantive law. 

B. Unjust Enrichment under Maryland Law 

 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment should be dismissed 

under Rule 12(b)(6) because both parties agree that a valid contract—the Services 

Agreement—governs the parties’ relationship. (Doc. 30). Accordingly, Defendant 

concludes that Plaintiff cannot bring an unjust enrichment claim. (Id.) Plaintiff argues 

that its unjust enrichment claim is proper because the Services Agreement “does not fully 

address a subject matter” relevant to Plaintiff’s cause of action. (Doc. 32 at 3). 

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to bring an unjust enrichment claim as 

well as its breach of contract claim because it is “quite clear, given the parties’ prelitigation positions that Defendant [will] argue that the Services Agreement [does] not 

cover some or all of the audit services performed by [Plaintiff].” (Id.) 

 Under Maryland law, unjust enrichment consists of three elements: “(1) a benefit 

conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) an appreciation or knowledge of the 

defendant of the benefit, and (3) the acceptance or retention by the defendant of the 

benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the 

benefit without the payment of its value.” Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 936 

A.2d 343, 351 (Md. 2007); see generally Alts. Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Bd. 

of Sch. Comm’rs, 843 A.2d 252, 300 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004). The absence of a 

contract is not an element of unjust enrichment. See generally Berry & Gould, P.A. v. 

Berry, 757 A.2d 108, 113 (Md. 2000); Everhart v. Miles, 422 A.2d 28, 31 (Md. Ct. Spec. 

App. 1980). 

 Here, Plaintiff pleaded all three elements of unjust enrichment. (Doc. 1 ¶ 30–33). 

Plaintiff also pleaded facts that support its claim for unjust enrichment. Specifically, 

Plaintiff pleaded that (1) it spent over a year providing audit services for Defendant and 

identified 492 claims for which Defendant was entitled to recovery (Doc. 1 ¶ 14–15); (2) 

Defendant acknowledged that Plaintiff preformed audit services, but only paid Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-00443-JAT Document 50 Filed 12/04/14 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

for 400 of the claims Plaintiff identified (Id. at ¶ 17–19); and (3) it would be unjust for 

Defendant to retain the benefit of Plaintiff’s audit services without paying for them (Id. at 

¶ 19–21). In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court 

must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. At this stage in the 

litigation it is unclear whether the Services Agreement addresses all of the services 

Plaintiff provided. Moreover, because Plaintiff is not required to plead the absence of a 

contract, Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment, though improbable, is sufficient to 

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). 

Additionally, Rule 8(d)(3) permits a party to state as many separate claims or 

defenses regardless of consistency because a party may not be sure in advance which 

legal theory will succeed. At this stage in the litigation, the Court views the inconsistency 

between Plaintiff’s two claims as permissible under Rule 8(d)(3). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

claim for unjust enrichment cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 

12(b)(6). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Claim for Relief 

(Unjust Enrichment) of Complaint, (Doc. 30), is denied. 

 Dated this 4th day of December, 2014. 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00443-JAT Document 50 Filed 12/04/14 Page 5 of 5