Opinion ID: 200478
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was it error to exclude the alternative theory?

Text: 34 We now consider whether it was error for the district court to exclude the claim. A complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). This simplified pleading standard must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). A breach of contract complaint must allege (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract; (2) that plaintiff has complied with the contract and performed his own obligations under it; and (3) breach of the contract causing damages. 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1235, at 268-70 (2d ed.2002). 35 The Officers claim that the following language identifies a claim for breach of a separate contract: 36 [T]he plaintiffs conferred by facsimile and/or emails on several occasions resulting in the wrongful termination of plaintiffs. In any event, defendants agreed that plaintiff's last day of work would be April 20, 2001 and that they would be paid their wages, vacation days and time off in accordance with their contracts for that period of time that there was to be a notice of termination as stated in their contracts. 37 (Emphasis added.) 38 While the Officers' complaint clearly establishes a breach of employment contract claim, it fails to set forth the basic elements to show that a separate contract was formed by the parties after conclusion of the employment relationship. The complaint states that defendants agreed that plaintiffs would work two weeks and be paid their notice of termination period but does not explain how this agreement arose, whether it was a binding contract, whether plaintiffs performed under the contract, and whether defendants breached the contract. It therefore is insufficient to establish a claim for breach of a subsequent contract. The district court properly read the complaint to only include a breach of employment contract claim.