Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Fox (plaintiff) sued Lummus Company (defendant) for unpaid portions of his salary.
When a defendant moves to dismiss, strike, or for a more definite statement, the court should grant it when the defendant cannot be held liable solely based on the plaintiff’s allegations.
Plaintiff was employed by the defendant and executed an employment contract, which provided the plaintiff’s salary would be reduced monthly, to equalize after taxes of other employees of different nationalities. The salary was to be reduced by a theoretical amount. No tax was ever levied by the government and the plaintiff brought suit for the unpaid portion. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quasi contract, and that the defendant continually pressured him to resign, causing mental distress, and seeking $100,000 in damages. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The defendant also moved for a more definite statement of his claim they pressure him to resign and motion to strike his request for damages stemming from mental injuries, all under rule 12.
Whether when a defendant moves to dismiss, strike, or for a more definite statement, the court should grant it when the defendant cannot be held liable solely based on the plaintiff’s allegations.
Yes. When a defendant moves to dismiss, strike, or for a more definite statement, the court should grant it when the defendant cannot be held liable solely based on the plaintiff’s allegations.
The court should grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss regarding the breach of contract because there was no breach, because the contract said that the defendant would reduce the taxes, which they did. The plaintiff cannot recover under unjust enrichment and quasi contract because those are equitable remedies only available when there is in fact no contract. The plaintiff’s accusation of mental distress from “pressuring” was to ambiguous and required a motion for a more definite statement. He must be more specific. The motion to strike should be granted because those alleged damages from mental distress are non-economic and cannot be recovered in an employment case.