Anthony Imperial v. Swift Moving Services, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Plaintiff Anthony Imperial’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Swift Moving Services, LLC’s amended counterclaims. The court held that the alleged Bill of Lading and related conduct plausibly supported counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment under Ohio law. The court concluded that disputes concerning assent, duress, payment, and the benefits received required further factual development.

Holdings

1. The breach-of-contract counterclaim plausibly alleged a contractual relationship, Imperial's breach, and resulting damages, so dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was unwarranted.
2. The unjust-enrichment counterclaim plausibly alleged that Imperial received and retained a benefit at Swift's expense under circumstances making retention without payment unjust, so dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was unwarranted.
3. The amended counterclaims satisfied Rule 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement and stated plausible claims for relief under Rule 12(b)(6).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Swift plausibly alleged the existence of an enforceable contract and a breach sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
2. Whether Swift plausibly alleged the elements of unjust enrichment under Ohio law sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Disposition

dismissed