Opinion ID: 201629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count Two: Breach of Contract

Text: 19 The substance of the Appellants' breach of contract claim is that it was a breach of the settlement agreement for the City of Bangor to deny Diva's application for a special amusement permit — that is, that the Appellees breached their obligation not to frustrate, retard, or disallow the plaintiff's ability to practice her art form, consistent with the terms of the agreement. On appeal, the Appellants raise only a procedural challenge to the district court's order of dismissal: they argue that the district court improperly dismissed their breach of contract claim because the second amended complaint pled all the elements necessary to state a claim for breach of contract and that the court transcended the applicable scope of review when it considered the settlement document in rendering its decision on the motion to dismiss. The Appellants are incorrect. 20 The City of Bangor attached a copy of the settlement agreement to its motion to dismiss. And, although [o]rdinarily, a court may not consider any documents that are outside of the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted into one for summary judgment, Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir.2001), [u]nder First Circuit precedent, when `a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to — and admittedly dependent upon — a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged),' then the court can review it upon a motion to dismiss. Id. at 34 (quoting Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.1998)). Here, the Appellants' claim that the Appellees breached the settlement agreement is dependent on the scope of the settlement agreement, and thus, that document was properly considered by the district court. Furthermore, the settlement agreement provides only that the City of Bangor would permit Diva's to operate as a nude entertainment establishment until May 31, 2001, in violation of the amended Bangor Code Section 228. There is nothing in the settlement agreement that explicitly or implicitly creates a contract between the parties with regards to a special amusement permit. The Appellants have failed to state claim for breach of contract.