Jenesis Computers, LLC v. Ergonomic Group, Inc.
Filing
46
Ruling and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/9/2012. (Falcone, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JENESIS COMPUTERS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERGONOMIC GROUP, INC. &
HEWLETT-PACKARD, INC.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 3:11cv936 (MRK)
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jenesis Computers has alleged that Defendant Hewlett-Packard breached a
contract with Jenesis and conspired with other parties—including Defendant Ergonomic Group,
Inc. ("EGI")—to refuse to deal with Jenesis, in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act.
Hewlett-Packard has responded with a Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 41] for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because the Court finds that
Jenesis has plausibly stated a breach of contract claim but not an antitrust claim against HewlettPackard, the Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 41] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as
described more fully below.
I.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The
"plausible grounds" requirement "does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading
1
stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence" supporting the plaintiff's claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
In reviewing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
must "accept[] all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[] all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009).
However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. "A pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual
enhancement." Id. (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Twombly and Iqbal
reiterated the longstanding bar against vague and conclusory allegations; they did not invent or
raise that bar. See Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010); cf. Greene v.
Wright, 389 F. Supp. 2d 416, 426 (D. Conn. 2005) (quoting Keating v. Carey, 706 F.2d 377, 392
n.2 (2d Cir. 1983) ("[T]his Circuit has consistently held that complaints containing only
conclusory, vague, or general allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss.")).
II.
According to its Amended Complaint [doc. # 31], Jenesis Computers is a limited liability
company that sells, installs, and repairs computers and other information technology, primarily
in Connecticut, often to state and local government agencies. Defendant Hewlett-Packard is a
Delaware corporation that also sells information technology equipment; it removed this lawsuit
to federal court after being sued by Jenesis in Connecticut Superior Court. Hewlett-Packard's codefendant, EGI, is a New York corporation also involved in selling and installing information
2
technology. The seven counts that Jenesis has brought against EGI are not contested in the
motion at hand.
The facts relevant to the two counts that Jenesis has brought against Hewlett-Packard are
as follows. Around 2005, Jenesis was accepted by Hewlett-Packard as an authorized service
provider ("ASP") for Hewlett-Packard products. Hewlett-Packard's website, through which
Jenesis had registered to become an ASP, contained an agreement that governed the obligations
between Hewlett-Packard and its ASPs. Among other things, this agreement set the terms and
conditions of the payments ASPs would be receive for repairs.
In 2009, Jenesis agreed to perform all of EGI's network installation within Connecticut
for the next three years. Around the same time, representatives of Hewlett-Packard and EGI
attempted to induce school officials in Harford, Bridgeport, and Waterbury to submit requests for
bids with requirements that only Hewlett-Packard could satisfy.
In 2010, the relationship between Jenesis and EGI soured. By summer, both EGI and
Hewlett-Packard had begun withholding payments for services Jenesis had provided. Jenesis
alleges—presumably against Hewlett-Packard, though the Amended Complaint could be clearer
on this point—that "nearly 2500 claims have not been paid, more than half of which were $75.00
claims." Id. ¶ 51.
In Fall 2010, EGI successfully requested preferential pricing from Hewlett-Packard for
public contracts in Connecticut. Meanwhile, Hewlett-Packard refused to provide pricing to
Jenesis for a bid to supply information technology for the Connecticut judiciary. That contract
went to EGI, which used Hewlett-Packard products. Hewlett-Packard did, however, provide
pricing to Jenesis for a bid on information technology for a school district that would not work
with EGI.
3
Jenesis claims that "[b]y negotiating pre-bid requirements that only HP can fill and
refusing to provide pricing to EGI's customers, HP and EGI have eliminated the competition for
government contracts in the State of Connecticut." Id. ¶ 66. According to Jenesis, HewlettPackard conspired either with EGI or with government officials—or both—to refuse to deal with
Jenesis.
III.
The Court turns first to Count IX of the Amended Complaint: Jenesis's breach of contract
claim against Hewlett-Packard. The level of factual detail in the Amended Complaint is hardly
overwhelming. But the Court must take as true those facts which are alleged, and "a well-pleaded
complaint may proceed even if it appears 'that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'"
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).
Specifically, Jenesis has alleged: (1) that it had an agreement with Hewlett-Packard to
provide services as an ASP; (2) that it performed such services; (3) that Hewlett-Packard began
withholding payments for warranty services provided by Jenesis beginning in Summer 2010; and
(4) that nearly 2500 claims have not been paid. Together, these factual allegations state a breach
of contract claim that is plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The Court will thus
allow this claim to proceed.
The Court finds support for this decision in the fact that Jenesis's breach of contract claim
does not open Hewlett-Packard to anything like the massive discovery that troubled the Twombly
Court. See id. at 558-60. Quite the contrary: as this case proceeds to its next phase, HewlettPackard can simply request invoices or other proof of unpaid services from Jenesis and move for
summary judgment if such proof is not forthcoming.
4
For these reasons, Hewlett-Packard's Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 41] is DENIED as to
Count IX of the Amended Complaint.
IV.
The Court finds significantly less factual support in the Amended Complaint for Count
VIII: Jenesis's antitrust claim against Hewlett-Packard. Paragraphs 69-74 of the Amended
Complaint all fall within the category of "pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950; cf. Am.
Compl. at 13-14. This leaves only the allegations from earlier in the Complaint that (1) HewlettPackard and EGI negotiated for bid requirements that only Hewlett-Packard could meet; (2)
Hewlett-Packard and EGI employees met to discuss preferential pricing for EGI; (3) HewlettPackard gave EGI favorable pricing; and (4) Hewlett-Packard refused to provide Jenesis pricing
for one bid that it wanted to submit.
None these allegations even purport to show that Hewlett-Packard and any other party
contracted, combined, or conspired to refuse to deal with Jenesis. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-28.
"It is a well settled proposition of anti-trust law that a manufacturer or supplier . . . has a right to
deal, or refuse to deal, with whomever it likes as long as it does so independently." Retail Serv.
Assoc. v. ConAgra Pet Products Co., 759 F. Supp. 976, 979 (D. Conn. 1991). Even so, Jenesis
offers only one instance in which Hewlett-Packard itself refused to deal with Jenesis. See Am.
Compl. [doc. # 31] ¶¶ 62. With such meager factual support, Jenesis's claim that "HP and EGI
have eliminated the competition for government contracts in the State of Connecticut," id. ¶ 66,
lacks plausibility. In fact, the claim is belied by the preceding paragraphs, in which Jenesis
describes a specific instance in it was offered pricing by Hewlett-Packard in order to compete for
a government contract in Connecticut. See id. ¶¶ 64-65.
5
The Court notes that Jenesis's claims against EGI—including its antitrust claim—are all
moving forward, and discovery regarding those claims has begun. Should Jenesis discover
evidence during discovery that Hewlett-Packard somehow contracted, combined, or conspired
with another party to refuse to deal with Jenesis, Jenesis may request that the Court reinstate its
antitrust claim against Hewlett-Packard. But at this point, even after the Court gave it the chance
to amend its complaint and instructed it to "plead as many facts as possible consistent with Rule
11," Order [doc. # 27], Jenesis has still not "suppl[ied] facts adequate to show illegality,"
Twombly, 500 U.S. at 557. Thus, the Court finds that Jenesis has failed to state an antitrust claim
against Hewlett-Packard.
As to Count VIII of the Amended Complaint [doc. # 31], Hewlett-Packard's Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mark R. Kravitz
United States District Judge
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: January 9, 2012.
6
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?