Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/pawdce/3:2017cv00153/240483/26
Timestamp: 2018-08-15 20:15:19
Document Index: 445752595

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', '§ 1332', '§ 1391', '§ 5524', '§ 5524']

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying 7 Motion to Remand for ZAMIAS et al v. FIFTH THIRD BANK :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Western District Court ZAMIAS et al v. FIFTH THIRD BANK Filing 26
ZAMIAS et al v. FIFTH THIRD BANK
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying 7 Motion to Remand. Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the following claims asserted by the Zamias Guarantors, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: i. Fraud (Count 1); ii. Fraudulent inducement (Count 5); iii. Tortious interference with contractual relations (Count 2), with respect to the first two allegations which are, as a matter of law, barred by the two-year statute of limitations; iv. Equitable accounting (Count 4); and v. Predatory Lending (Count 6). b. Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss is also GRANTED with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 3) and their claim for legal accounting (Count 4). As explained above, these claims are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. c. Fifth Third& #039; s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' third allegation of tortious interference with contractual relations (Count 2), and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 1/9/2018. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE ZAMIAS, ESTATE OF MARIANNA ZAMIAS, DECEASED, DAMIAN ZAMIAS, individually and as coexecutor of the Estate of Marianna Zamias, STEPHEN ZAMIAS, individually and as coexecutor of the Estate of Marianna Zamias, ESTATE OF SAMUEL ZAMIAS, DECEASED, Kathleen Zamias, Executor, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:17-cv-153 ) Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON ) v. ) ) FIFTH THIRD BANK, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction Pending before the Court are two motions: (1) a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs (the "Zamias Guarantors") (ECF No. 7) and (2) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Fifth Third Bank ("Fifth Third"). (ECF No. 4.) The Motions are fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 4, 7, 15, and 25) and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY the Zamias Guarantors' Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 7.) The Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 4.) II. Jurisdiction This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. III. Background A. Factual History1 This dispute arises from real estate loans made on the eve of the Financial Crisis of 20072008 to facilitate the construction of shopping malls in Eastern Pennsylvania. (See generally ECF No. 1-2 at enen 8-18.) In 2007, Fifth Third executed a $20,000,000.00 construction loan with Taylor Associates (the "Taylor Loan") to finance the construction of a mall in Taylor Borough, Lackawanna County. (Id. at enen 9, 12, 13.) George Zamias, Marianna Zamias, Damian Zamias, Samuel Zamias, and Stephen Zamias (the "Zamias Guarantors"), and Louis Nicozisis, Helen Nicozisis, and John Politis (the "Non-Zamias Guarantors") executed a Continuing Guaranty and Suretyship Agreement for the full amount of the Taylor Loan. (Id. at en 14.) In 2008, Fifth Third executed an $11,400,000.00 construction loan with Pittston Associates (the "Pittston Loan") to finance the construction of a mall in Pittston Township, Luzerne County. (Id. at enen 10, 16.) The Zamias Guarantors and the Non-Zamias Guarantors executed a Continuing Guaranty and Suretyship Agreement for the full amount of the Pittston Loan. (Id. at en 17.) Fifth Third extended these loans despite knowing that they were not adequately collateralized. (Id. at <:![ 32; ECF 11 No. 15 at 12.) However, contrary to the Zamias Guarantors' contention, "the presence of a neutral factor necessarily weighs against abstention." Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Rosenfeld, No. CIV.A. 05-5542 (KSH), 2007 WL 2226014, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2007). Accordingly, the Court agrees with Fifth Third that the first factor favors this Court exercising its jurisdiction. The second factor- the inconvenience of the federal forum - also weighs against abstention. The Zamias Guarantors acknowledge that the state court in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania and the federal court in Johnstown, Pennsylvania are equally convenient for the parties. (See ECF No. 7 at <_![ 42); and (4) "misrepresent[ed] its true intentions to the Zamias Guarantors and strong arm[ed] them into making unlawful pledges of assets already pledged as collateral to other lenders." (Id. at 1I 36.) The Zamias Guarantors failed to allege when and where Fifth Third made these misrepresentations and "inject the requisite precision" into their fraud allegations. Frederico, 507 F.3d at 200. 21 These vague, generic, and amorphous allegations fall far short of the "stringent" requirement that "a plaintiff must plead or allege the date, time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation into a fraud allegation." Id. at 200. Therefore, the Court holds that the Zamias Guarantors failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy the "stringent" pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' fraud claim (Count 1). 5. The Zamias Guarantors Have Failed to Plead Fraudulent Inducement with Sufficient Particularity to Survive Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss The Zamias Guarantors' fraudulent inducement claim centers around their allegation that they would not have signed any of the contracts and loan documents executed after October 10, 21 The Court also notes that most of these representations appear to have been made to federal regulators, rather than the Zamias Guarantors themselves. 26 2013 had they not relied on Mr. Peura' s fraudulent assurance that Fifth Third would not pursue the Zamias Guarantors personally. (See ECF No. 1-2 at 22-23.) But, as discussed above, Mr. Peura's statement is barred by the parol evidence rule. Absent Mr. Puera' s statement, the Zamias Guarantors have failed to plead sufficient facts to give rise to a reasonable inference that Fifth Third is liable for fraudulent inducement under the "stringent" pleading requirements for fraudulent inducement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Accordingly, this Court will dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' fraudulent inducement claim (Count 5). D. The Zamias Guarantors Have Sufficiently Pleaded Their Interference with Contractual Relations Claim to Survive Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss The Zamias Guarantors assert that Fifth Third interfered with the Zamias Guarantors' contractual relationships in three distinct ways. First, by its "failure to properly and timely fund Plaintiffs' [Taylor and Pittston] Projects" (ECF No. 1-2 at <][<][ 64-67.) Thus, the two-year statute of limitations had not expired when the Zamias Guarantors brought the instant action on June 26, Since the Court holds that the statute of limitations precludes the Zamias Guarantors' from succeeding on their tortious interference claim regarding Fifth Third's failure to adequately fund the Projects, the Court need not address Fifth Third's argument that the Zamias Guarantors lack standing. 24 The Zamias Guarantors assert that "[t]he Pittston Project was sold for $4,250,000 to T Pittston Crossings PA LLC on December 29, 2015" (ECF No. 1-2 at 'II 66), and that the "Taylor Project was deeded back to Fifth Third through the bankruptcy process on December 24, 2015." (Id. at 'II 67.) 23 30 2017. Accordingly, § 5524(3) does not preclude the Zamias Guarantors' tortious interference claims arising from Fifth Third' s involvement in the transactions that took place in December 2015. In conclusion, the Court will grant in part, and deny in part, Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' tortious interference claims. The Court grants Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' first two allegations of tortious interference claims, which, as a matter of law, accrued before June 26, 2015 and are thus barred by § 5524(3)' s twoyear statute of limitations. The Court denies Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' final allegations of tortious interference because the Zamias Guarantors filed suit less than two years after the allegedly tortious conduct occurred. E. The Zamias Guarantors Have Failed to Adequately Plead a Cause of Action for the Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing to Survive Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss Fifth Third argues that this Court must dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because (1) the Zamias Guarantors have not brought a breach of contract claim and (2) Pennsylvania law does not recognize a standalone claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 4 at 21-22.) The Zamias Guarantors do not directly respond to Fifth Third' s argument. Instead, in their brief, the Zamias Guarantors reiterate the purported bases for their claim (see ECF No. 25 at 18-19, <[<[ 1-4) and assert that the duty of good faith and fair dealing applies here because it attaches to all contracts in Pennsylvania. (Id. at 18-19.) "Pennsylvania law does not ... recognize an independent claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Grp. Health, Inc., No. CIV.A. 31 05-102, 2006 WL 146426, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2006). "In Pennsylvania, the implied duty of good faith is 'tied specifically to and is not separate from the duties a contract imposes on the parties."' Rapid Circuits, Inc. v. Sun Nat. Bank, No. CIV.A. 10-6401, 2011WL1666919, at *17 (E.D. Pa. May 3, 2011) (quoting Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418, 434 (Pa. 2001)). Accordingly, courts applying Pennsylvania law dismiss claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when the plaintiff has not pleaded a breach of contract claim. See Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc., 2006 WL 146426, at *6 (dismissing breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim because the complaint "does not include the technical breach of contract basis that is required in order to pursue a claim based on the breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."); Rapid Circuits, Inc., 2011WL1666919, at *18 (dismissing claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because plaintiff failed to plead a breach of contract claim and thus "fails to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.") The Zamias Guarantors did not plead a breach of contract claim. (See ECF No. 1-2.) As stated above, Pennsylvania law does not recognize a standalone claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Thus, the Zamias Guarantors cannot maintain their independent claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this claim. 25 F. The Zamias Guarantors Have Failed to Sufficiently Plead Their Accounting Claim to Survive Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss As stated below, the Zamias Guarantors will be granted leave to amend this claim and will be permitted to assert a separate breach of contract claim if they so choose. 25 32 /1 The Zamias Guarantors allege that Fifth Third disposed of certain collateral in the Taylor Associates' and Pittston Associates' bankruptcy cases" but 'failed to account to the [Zamias Guarantors] for its disposition of such collateral." (ECF No. 1-2 at ']I'll 103-104.) The Zamias Guarantors further allege that Fifth Third "failed to account to the [Zamias Guarantors] and properly credit [them] with all payments that they have made on their account." (Id. at ']I 108.) The Zamias Guarantors assert that Fifth Third' s failure to account for these proceeds constitutes a breach of contract and a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. (Id. at 107.) The Zamias Guarantors contend that they are "entitled to an accounting of all proceeds received by Fifth Third concerning the transactions involved in this action." (Id. at 109.) Fifth Third contends that this Court must dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' accounting claim because "there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties, there are no valid allegations of fraud ... the accounts are not complicated ... [and] Plaintiffs' readily admit that they would have an adequate remedy at law for this claim .... " 26 (ECF No. 4 at 24.) In response, the Zamias Guarantors repeat their assertion that they are entitled to an accounting of the collateral that Fifth Third disposed of in the transactions mentioned in the Complaint. (ECF No. 25at19-20.) "Under Pennsylvania law, the entitlement to an accounting may be legal or equitable." Lightman v. Marcus, No. CIV.A. 12-97, 2012 WL 1344378, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2012). The Court notes that the Zamias Guarantors failed to specify which type of accounting claim they assert. Accordingly, the Court construes the Zamias Guarantors' generic "accounting" claim as two Fifth Third assumes that Fifth Third brought an equitable accounting claim. Fifth Third does not address whether the Court should dismiss a legal accounting claim. 26 33 separate claims-a claim a legal accounting and a claim for an equitable accounting. As explained below, the Court will dismiss both claims. 1. The Zamias Guarantors Have Failed to Sufficiently Plead Their Legal Accounting Claim to Survive Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss "A legal accounting is not a claim, but a demand for relief." Canfield v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties Inc., No. CV 3:16-0085, 2017 WL 1078184, at *25 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2017) (citing Pa. R. Civ. P. 1021(a)). "A legal accounting 'is merely an incident to a proper assumpsit claim."' Sullivan v. Rankin, No. 1:16-CV-2546, 2017 WL 4544619, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2017) (quoting Buczek v. First National Bank of Mifflintown, 531 A.2d 1122, 1123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)). An assumpsit claim is a "common-law action for breach of such a promise or for breach of a contract." Sullivan, 2017 WL 4544619, at *6 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "the right to an accounting at law is a form of relief that attaches only where the defendant has breached a valid contract with the plaintiff." Lightman, 2012 WL 1344378, at *4 (citing Haft v. U.S. Steel Corp., 499 A.2d 676, 677-78 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985)). "Thus, a legal accounting requires a valid contract, either express or implied, and a breach of that contract." Canfield, 2017 WL 1078184, at *25 (internal citations omitted). The Court holds that the Zarnias Guarantors have failed to sufficiently plead their claim for legal accounting. The Zarnias Guarantors have not brought a separate claim for breach of contract. The Court notes that in Count 4 of their Complaint (labeled the "Accounting" claim), the Zamias Guarantors assert that "Fifth Third's [failure to meet its] obligation to account to the Plaintiffs for its disposition of the collateral constitutes a breach of contract .... " (ECF No. 1-2 at cil 107.) However, as noted above, a legal accounting is not a separate claim but rather a form of 34 relief that accompanies a formal breach of contract claim. Because the Zamias Guarantors have not brought a breach of contract claim, the Court will dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' claim for legal accounting. 2. The Zamias Guarantors Have Failed to Sufficiently Plead Their Equitable Accounting Claim to Survive Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss "An equitable accounting is improper where no fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, no fraud or misrepresentation is alleged, the accounts are not mutual or complicated, or plaintiff possesses an adequate remedy at law." Kappe Assocs., Inc. v. Chesapeake Envtl. Equip., LLC, No. 5:15-CV-02211-JFL, 2016 WL 1257665, at *12 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2016) (quoting Rock v. Pyle, 720 A.2d 137, 142 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)) (emphasis in original). "Equitable jurisdiction for an accounting does not exist merely because the plaintiff desires information that [it] could obtain through discovery." Kappe Assocs., Inc, 2016 WL 1257665, at *12 (quoting Buczek v. First Nat'l Bank of Mifflintown, 531A.2d1122, 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)); McWreath v. Range Res.--Appalachia, LLC, 81 F. Supp. 3d 448, 468 (W.D. Pa. 2015) (Conti, J.) (same). Even when the veracity of all of the allegations of the Complaint is assumed, the Zamias Guarantors' have not pleaded sufficient facts to give rise to a reasonable inference that they are entitled to relief pursuant to their equitable accounting claim. The Zamias Guarantors have not alleged that they had a fiduciary relationship with Fifth Third. Furthermore, this case does not involve circumstances that typically give rise to a fiduciary relationship, such as "a special vulnerability in one person that creates a unique opportunity for another person to take advantage to their benefit." Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 161 A.3d 811, 821 (Pa. 2017); see also Slapikas v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 298 F.R.D. 285, 293 (W.D. Pa. 2014) ("A fiduciary relationship 35 exists where 'one person has reposed a special confidence in another to the extent that the parties do not deal with each other on equal terms, either because of an overmastering dominance on one side or weakness, dependence or justifiable trust, on the other."') (quoting Johnson v. Robinson (In re Johnson), 292 B.R. 821, 828 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003). Therefore, the Court will grant Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' equitable accounting claim. G. The Zamias Guarantors Have Failed to Sufficiently Plead Their Predatory Lending Claim to Survive Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss Fifth Third contends that the Zamias Guarantors' predatory lending claim fails because there is no common law claim for predatory lending in Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 4 at 24-25.) Alternatively, Fifth Third contends that the Zamias Guarantors cannot maintain a predatory lending claim because they "were not consumers, did not borrow from Fifth Third, and were not members of a protected class" but rather "sophisticated developers represented by counsel." (Id. at 25.) In response, the Zamias Guarantors argue that Pennsylvania does recognize a claim for predatory lending. (ECF No. 25 at 22.) The Zamias Guarantors further assert that Fifth Third engaged in predatory lending practices by: (1) "refus[ing] to fund the full amount of construction 11 loans as committed .. . ; (2) "plac[ing] the loans into 'workout' even though the Zamias Guarantors were not in default ... "; (3) "continually demand[ing] that the Zamias Guarantors provide additional collateral even though it had no entitlement to the same"; (4) and "permit[ing] 36 the Non-Zamias Guarantors to buy out their guaranties, but ... not afford[ing] the same opportunity to the Zamias Guarantors." (Id. at 23.) "[T]here is no common law claim for predatory lending in Pennsylvania, and any claim alleging predatory lending without citation to a statutory basis for the claim should be dismissed." Welch v. Bank of Am., No. 13CV1058, 2014 WL 550595, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2014); see Levy-Tatum v. Navient Sols., Inc., 183 F. Supp. 3d 701, 708 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ("Pennsylvania does not recognize a common law action for predatory lending"); In re McConnell, 390 B.R. 170, 182 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008) ("there is no common law cause of action for 'predatory lending.' Any claim for relief for predatory lending practices must be supported by some statutory basis."). The Zamias Guarantors do not cite any statute to support their predatory lending claim, either in their Complaint (see ECF No. 1-2 at 'f[1[ 116-118) or in their Brief in Opposition to Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss. 27 (See ECF No. 25 at 22-23.) Therefore, the Court will grant Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss the Zamias Guarantors' predatory lending claim. H. Leave to Amend "[l]f a complaint is subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile." 28 CollegeSource, The Court notes that the cases that the Zamias Guarantors cite to support their predatory lending claim are inapposite; unlike the Zamias Guarantors, the plaintiffs in those cases identified statutory bases for their predatory lending claims. See McGlawn v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, 891 A.2d 757 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (citing the Fair Housing Act); Girard Fin. Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, 52 A.3d 523 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012) (citing the Fair Housing Act); Salley v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 925 A.2d 115 (2007) (citing the Truth in Lending Act). In contrast, the Zamias Guarantors have not pointed to a statutory basis for their predatory lending claim. 28 Likewise, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 embodies a liberal approach to amendment and directs that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires" unless other factors weigh against such relief. Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d Cir. 1990). 27 37 Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 597 F. App' x 116, 126 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008)). Amendment would be futile "if the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." Munchak v. Ruckno, 692 F. App'x 100, 102 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that amendment would be futile with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' fraud, fraudulent inducement, equitable accounting, and predatory lending claims, which this Court has dismissed in their entirety. The Court also finds that amendment would be futile with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' first two allegations of tortious interference with contractual relations because they are, as a matter of law, barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss these claims without leave to amend. By contrast, the Court finds that amendment would not be futile with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' claims of (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and (2) legal accounting. The Court reiterates that these claims must be accompanied by a formal breach of contract claim. The Court also observes that the Zamias Guarantors have alleged breach of contract within other counts of their Complaint, but have failed to technically assert a separate breach of contract claim. The Court therefore will allow the Zamias Guarantors to amend their Complaint to add a claim for breach of contract, if they choose to do so. VII. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART, Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4). An appropriate order follows. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE ZAMIAS, ESTATE OF MARIANNA ZAMIAS, individually and as co-executor of the Estate of Marianna Zamias, STEPHEN ZAMIAS, individually and as co-executor of the Estate of Marianna Zamias, ESTATE OF SAMUEL ZAMIAS, DECEASED, Kathleen Zamias, Executor, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:17-cv-153 ) Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON ) ) ~ ) FIFTH THIRD BANK, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, upon consideration of the Zamias Guarantors' Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) and Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4), and in accordance with the attached memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Zamias Guarantors' Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. 2. Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the following claims asserted by the Zamias Guarantors, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: i. Fraud (Count 1); ii. Fraudulent inducement (Count 5); m. Tortious interference with contractual relations (Count 2), with respect to the first two allegations which are, as a matter of law, barred by the two-year statute of limitations; iv. Equitable accounting (Count 4); 29 and v. Predatory Lending (Count 6). b. Fifth Third's Motion to Dismiss is also GRANTED with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 3) and their claim for legal accounting (Count 4). As explained above, these claims are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. c. Fifth Third' s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to the Zamias Guarantors' third allegation of tortious interference with contractual relations (Count 2). BY THE COURT: KIM R. GIBSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Court notes that the Zamias Guarantors did not plead separate counts for legal and equitable accounting. However, as noted above, the Court construes Count 4 (titled "Accounting") as two separate counts-one for legal accounting and one for equitable accounting. 29