Steinke v. SafeGuard World International LLC
Filing
42
ORDER denying SafeGuard's 32 Motion to Dismiss. (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 4/11/2017.(MMO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Stuart Steinke,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-16-03491-PHX-DLR
SafeGuard World International LLC,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
Plaintiff Stuart Steinke worked as a Regional Sales Manager for Defendant
17
SafeGuard World International LLC (SafeGaurd) from October 2014 until he was
18
terminated in February 2016. The offer letter SafeGaurd sent to Steinke stated that, in
19
addition to his $105,000 annual salary, Steinke would “be paid a guaranteed commission
20
of $1,500 each month for [his] first full 5 months.” After 6 months, Steinke would “be
21
expected to start repaying 50% of [his] commission back to the company at a minimum
22
rate of $500 per month,” regardless of whether Steinke was actually earning commissions
23
after that point. Further, the offer letter explained that “commissions will be paid on the
24
first years sales order value commensurate with the [2014 fiscal year] Sales Incentive
25
Plan[.]” Steinke alleges that he made approximately $3.2 million in qualifying sales over
26
the course of his employment, and that SafeGuard still owes him approximately $60,000
27
in unpaid commissions.
28
At issue is SafeGuard’s Motion to Dismiss Steinke’s Second Amended Complaint,
1
which asserts claims for breach of contract and violations of Arizona wage laws. (Doc.
2
32.) The motion is fully briefed and neither party requested oral argument. For the
3
following reasons, the motion is denied.
4
I. Legal Standard
5
When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under Rule
6
12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light
7
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th
8
Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the
9
assumption of truth, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009), and therefore are
10
insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Sec.
11
Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must
12
plead sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp.
13
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a
14
‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
15
has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
16
II. Discussion
17
SafeGuard contends that Steinke has not sufficiently alleged a breach of contract
18
claim. Although SafeGuard does not discuss Steinke’s statutory claim, it nonetheless
19
requests complete rather than partial dismissal. The Court understands SafeGuard’s
20
position to be that Steinke cannot plausibly allege a violation of wage payment laws if he
21
cannot also plausibly allege that he is owed unpaid commissions under his breach of
22
contract claim. Accordingly, the Court will limit it discussion to Steinke’s breach of
23
contact allegations.
24
To state a plausible breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) the
25
existence of a contract, (2) a breach of that contract, and (3) resulting damages.
26
Thunderbird Metallurgical, Inc. v. Ariz. Testing Labs., 423 P.2d 124, 126 (Ariz. Ct. App.
27
1967). Steinke has adequately alleged each of these elements.
28
First, Steinke alleges that the signed offer letter, the 2014 Sales Incentive Plan, and
-2-
1
the parties’ course of conduct under those instruments collectively constitute the relevant
2
contract governing his entitlement to commissions. SafeGuard argues that Steinke’s
3
claim should be dismissed because his allegations require the Court to speculate about the
4
terms in the contract. The Court disagrees. Steinke attached to his Second Amended
5
Complaint both the terms of the 2014 Sales Incentive Program and the offer letter. The
6
Court need not speculate about the terms contained in these documents. Although the
7
offer letter only details the 2014 incentive figures, it alludes to the possibility of
8
commissions during the following year. Steinke also alleges that SafeGuard continued
9
paying him commissions after December 31, 2014, indicating that the offer letter did not
10
limit commissions to the 2014 fiscal year. Taken together, Steinke as plausibly alleged
11
the existence of a contract to pay commissions beyond 2014.
12
Second, Steinke alleges that SafeGuard breached this contract by failing to pay
13
him commissions on qualifying sales.
14
sufficiently alleged a breach of contract because he does not detail how and why his sales
15
were made in accordance with the Sales Incentive Plan. The Court disagrees.
SafeGuard contends that Steinke has not
16
Steinke specifies that he grossed approximately $3.2 million in sales that “met the
17
eligibility requirements of the Sales Incentive Program” and “went ‘live’ per the Sales
18
Incentive Program” prior to his termination.
19
required to allege “detailed factual allegations” to state a plausible claim to relief.
20
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Steinke has no obligation to identify each and every sale he
21
made while employed, nor is he required to mimic the exact language of the contract or
22
use magic words to describe his sales. SafeGuard is in a better position to obtain its own
23
sales and payroll records, and Steinke has provided sufficient information for SafeGuard
24
to reasonably prepare a response.
At the pleading stage, Steinke is not
25
Finally, Steinke alleges that he suffered approximately $60,000 in damages due to
26
SafeGuard’s breach, and that he is entitled to treble this amount under Arizona’s wage
27
laws. Accordingly, taking the well-pled facts as true and construing them in the light
28
most favorable to Steinke, the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleges a claim for
-3-
1
breach of contract.
2
IT IS ORDERED that SafeGuard’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
3
Dated this 11th day of April, 2017.
4
5
6
7
8
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?