Opinion ID: 2596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NetJets's Breach-of-Contract Claims Against LHC

Text: Two claims are duplicative of one another if they arise from the same facts... and do not allege distinct damages. Sitar v. Sitar, 50 A.D.3d 667, 670, 854 N.Y.S.2d 536, 538 (2d Dep't 2008); see, e.g., Conway v. Icahn & Co., 16 F.3d 504, 511 (2d Cir.1994). Where a claimant is entitled to a particular category of damages on one claim but not the other, the claims are not duplicative. See generally Freitag v. Bill Swad Datsun, 3 Ohio App.3d 83, 86, 443 N.E.2d 988, 992 (1981) (when a plaintiff establishes the elements of two claims arising out of the same set of facts, he is entitled to judgment on the claim that provides the greater measure of damages). Under New York law, a contract that provides for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce the contract is enforceable if the contractual language is sufficiently clear. See, e.g., Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, Inc. v. Fine Host Corp., 418 F.3d 168, 177-79 (2d Cir.2005); Hooper Associates, Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487, 491-92, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 366-67, 548 N.E.2d 903 (1989) (same). Under Ohio law, such contractual provisions for attorneys' fees are enforceable to the extent that the trial court, after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, may award such fees as are fair, just, and reasonable. See, e.g., Nottingdale Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Darby, 33 Ohio St.3d 32, 37, 514 N.E.2d 702, 706-07 (1987); Northwoods Condominium Owners' Association v. Arnold, 147 Ohio App.3d 343, 348, 770 N.E.2d 627, 630-31 (2002). On a valid cause of action for account stated, a plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due on the defendant's account. Recovery on such a claim does not ordinarily include an award for attorneys' fees. See, e.g., Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Martin, 11 Misc.3d 219, 225 n. 6, 807 N.Y.S.2d 284, 290 n. 6 (2005) (a fee award cannot be based upon a cause of action pleading an account stated); see generally Keal v. Day, 164 Ohio App.3d 21, 24, 840 N.E.2d 1139, 1141 (2005) (Ohio has adopted the `American Rule,' by which each party to a lawsuit must pay his or her own attorney fees, unless an exception applies, such as the parties' contract provid[ing] for fee-shifting). Thus, when a party has both a claim for account stated and a claim under a contract that provides for an award of attorneys' fees, the claims for breach of contract and account stated are not duplicative. In dismissing NetJets's breach-of-contract claims as duplicative of its account-stated claims, the district court relied on Lankler Siffert & Wohl, LLP v. Rossi, No. 02 Civ. 10055, 2004 WL 541842 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2004) ( Lankler ). That reliance was misplaced, however, because in that case the plaintiffs' claims (for account stated, breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contractual relations) all s[ought] the same relief; thus, the Lankler court noted that [i]f each of the judgments for the Moving Plaintiffs on their account stated claims are satisfied, then the Moving Plaintiffs will have received full relief. Id. at . LHC's brief on appeal presents no serious argument in support of the district court's conclusion that the NetJets claims for account stated and breach of contract were duplicative. It merely states conclusorily that those claims are duplicative (LHC brief on appeal at 22), and cites the fact that NetJets' Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for summary judgment discussed the account-stated claims first before discussing the breach-of-contract claims ( id. at 21-22). As set forth in Part I.A. above, both the Lease Agreement, which the parties agreed is to be governed by New York law, and the Management Agreement, which the parties agreed is to be governed by Ohio law, contain clauses that allow NetJets to recover reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in collecting the sums due under the respective Agreements. As those fees could not be recovered on claims for account stated, NetJets's contract claims were not duplicative of its claims for account stated.