Iguacu, Inc. v. Filho

Filing 320

ORDER RE QUANTUM MERUIT CLAIM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/18/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

IGUAÇU, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

15
16

ORDER RE QUANTUM MERUIT
CLAIM

ANTONIO CABRERA MANO FILHO,

17

No. C 09-0380 RS

Defendant.
____________________________________/

18
19

Plaintiff’s request to include a claim for recovery in quantum meruit, effectively an informal

20

motion under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to amend its complaint, is

21

denied. Notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring amendments, the prejudice to defendant at this

22

stage of the proceedings is palpable, significant, and not curable. No discovery or preparation of

23

expert testimony has taken place regarding what would be a difficult task, rife with potential

24

disputes, of assigning a dollar value to represent the “reasonable value” of plaintiff’s alleged

25

services, in the event the contractual claim fails.

26

Plaintiff argues that its pleading of an unjust enrichment affirmative defense to a counter

27

claim was sufficient to implicate these issues. That argument is unpersuasive. Proving “unjust

28

enrichment” would not require any quantification of the value of the alleged services. Thus,

1

defendant had no occasion to respond to the pleading of that affirmative defense by conducting the

2

types of discovery that would have been reasonably necessary to defend against a quantum meruit

3

claim. While plaintiff may be correct that recovery in quantum meruit is theoretically available

4

upon the failure of a contract claim in most instances, that does not excuse it from its obligation to

5

plead the claim and give defendant notice that it was seeking such recovery in the alternative.

6

Plaintiff’s request on the eve of trial, not even presented as a motion, comes too late.1

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: 9/18/13
RICHARD SEEBORG

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Notably, even plaintiff’s proposed special verdict form does not provide for a quantum meruit
claim.

2