Blanchard & Associates v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/6/2017: For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order entered this day, the Court grants Lupin USA's motion to dismiss 14 . The Court dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice. The Court denies Blanchard's request for default against Lupin, Ltd. 23 as moot. (See Order For Further Details) Mailed notice.(lxs, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BLANCHARD & ASSOCIATES,
LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and
No. 16 C 8843
Judge Sara L. Ellis
OPINION AND ORDER
After performing legal work for Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin USA”) and Lupin,
Ltd. (“Lupin India”) in 2009 and not getting paid for the entirety of its work, Plaintiff Blanchard
& Associates (“Blanchard”) filed suit in 2016 against Lupin USA and Lupin India for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment. Lupin USA moves to dismiss the amended complaint. Because
both the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims accrued in 2009 and are subject to a
five-year statute of limitations, the Court dismisses the amended complaint as time-barred.
Lupin USA and Lupin India, related pharmaceutical companies headquartered in
Maryland and India respectively, sought approval from the Food and Drug Administration
(“FDA”) for a generic birth control drug to be sold in the United States. 2 For help with the
The facts in the background section are taken from Blanchard’s amended complaint and the exhibits
attached thereto and are presumed true for the purpose of resolving Lupin USA’s motion to dismiss. See
Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 2011); Local 15, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v.
Exelon Corp., 495 F.3d 779, 782 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court does not consider Sean Moriarty’s affidavit,
attached to Lupin USA’s motion to dismiss, because the affidavit constitutes extrinsic evidence not
appropriately considered at the motion to dismiss stage. See Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 582–
83 (7th Cir. 2009).
Lupin USA and Lupin India launched the generic drug on October 11, 2011.
approval process, they turned to Blanchard, a law firm that formerly operated in Cook County,
Illinois. Blanchard communicated directly with Sofia Mumtaz, who held herself out as an
authorized agent of both Lupin USA and Lupin India. Blanchard provided Mumtaz with an
engagement letter in March 2009, which set out the terms of the parties’ agreement. The letter is
addressed to Mumtaz at “Lupin Research Park” in India and refers only to Lupin without
differentiating between Lupin USA and Lupin India. Doc. 8 at 7. In exchange for payment on
an hourly basis, Blanchard agreed to provide legal services in connection with patent reviews
and validity for the generic birth control drug.
Although Mumtaz did not sign the engagement letter, Blanchard proceeded to provide
legal work as directed by Mumtaz and submitted invoices for those services directly to her.
Blanchard received $29,475 for its initial work and $60,522 for additional work it performed
under the agreement. But $120,835 in fees from invoices dated October 31, 2009, remain
outstanding. The engagement letter provides that payments are due within thirty days of the
issuance of an invoice.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not
its merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir.
1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all wellpleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in
the plaintiff’s favor. AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). To survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a
claim’s basis but must also be facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.
Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Breach of Contract (Count I)
Lupin USA first argues that Blanchard has improperly named it as a party to the lawsuit
because Lupin USA has never entered into an agreement or done business with Blanchard. For
support, Lupin USA relies on the affidavit of its Vice President of Legal Affairs, Sean Moriarty,
but the Court cannot consider this affidavit because it falls outside the pleadings and the Court
refuses to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(d); Hecker, 556 F.3d at 582–83. Additionally, Lupin USA asks that the Court ignore
Blanchard’s allegations that Mumtaz held herself out as an authorized agent of both Lupin USA
and Lupin India, arguing that this allegation is merely a legal conclusion. The Court cannot
ignore this allegation at this stage, however, particularly where the agreement is addressed to
Mumtaz at “Lupin Research Park” and only generally refers to “Lupin” without differentiating
between Lupin USA and Lupin India. Doc. 8 at 7. Blanchard also alleges that Lupin USA and
Lupin India operated as a joint enterprise at the time to obtain FDA approval for a generic birth
control drug and engaged Blanchard to provide legal services to help them do so, which
suggested to Blanchard that its client was both Lupin USA and Lupin India. At this stage, the
Court must accept Blanchard’s allegations as true and draw all inferences in its favor.
AnchorBank, FSB, 649 F.3d at 614. Doing so means that Lupin USA must stay in the case until
further development of the facts establish the party or parties with whom Blanchard contracted.
Alternatively, Lupin USA argues that the Court must dismiss the breach of contract claim
because Blanchard has not alleged the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. To establish
the existence of a contract, Blanchard must demonstrate an offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Trapani Constr. Co. v. Elliot Grp., Inc., 64 N.E.3d 132, 143, 2016 IL App (1st) 143734, 407 Ill.
Dec. 754 (2016). Lupin USA contends that because the agreement attached to the amended
complaint has no signature by someone representing Lupin USA or Lupin India, Blanchard
cannot establish that Lupin USA or Lupin India assented to the contract. A contract, however,
can be written or implied in fact, with acceptance in an implied in fact contract “proven by
circumstances demonstrating that the parties intended to contract and by the general course of
dealing between the parties.” Id.; see also Landmark Props., Inc. v. Architects Int’l-Chicago,
526 N.E.2d 603, 606, 172 Ill. App. 3d 379, 122 Ill. Dec. 344 (1988) (“It is well settled that a
party named in a contract may, by his acts and conduct, indicate his assent to its terms and
become bound by its provisions even though he has not signed it.”). Here, Blanchard has alleged
sufficient facts to suggest that the parties’ conduct created a binding contract. Blanchard alleges
that it performed legal services pursuant to the agreement and submitted invoices for those
services directly to Mumtaz, who acted as an agent for both Lupin USA and Lupin India. The
invoices include notations of correspondence with Mumtaz, indicating that Mumtaz knew of and
accepted Blanchard’s work. Moreover, Blanchard alleges that two of its invoices were paid,
again suggesting that Lupin USA and Lupin India intended to be bound by the agreement,
despite the fact that it was never signed. See Trapani Constr. Co., 64 N.E.3d at 143 (evidence
that defendant paid plaintiff for work on other project under unsigned draft contracts suggested a
course of dealing and mutual intent to contract). At this stage, Blanchard has sufficiently alleged
the existence of a contract.
Finally, Lupin USA argues that should the Court find that Blanchard has sufficiently
alleged a contract, it should be deemed an oral contract subject to a five-year statute of
limitations. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that need not be anticipated in the
complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss. United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 842 (7th
Cir. 2005). But that is not the case where “the allegations of the complaint itself set forth
everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense, such as when a complaint plainly reveals
that an action is untimely under the governing statute of limitations.” Id.; see also Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (considering statute of limitations defense on motion to
dismiss where relevant dates were set forth in the complaint). Blanchard acknowledges in its
amended complaint and response to the motion to dismiss that Lupin USA and Lupin India
indicated their assent to the contract by their conduct, subjecting its breach of contract claim to a
five-year statute of limitations. See 735 Ill. Comp. stat. 5/13-205 (five-year statute of limitations
applies to “actions on unwritten contracts, expressed or implied”); see also Ramirez v. AP
Account Servs., LLC, No. 16-cv-2772, 2017 WL 25179, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2017) (a contract
is considered an oral contract for statute of limitations purposes where parol evidence is
necessary to determine the essential terms of the contract or the parties to it); Dawson v. W. & H.
Voortman, Ltd., 853 F. Supp. 1038, 1046 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (applying five-year statute of
limitations to implied in fact breach of contract claim). The statute of limitations begins to run
on the date of the breach. Dawson, 853 F. Supp. at 1046. Here, Blanchard seeks to collect on
invoices dated October 31, 2009 for which payment was due within thirty days (by November
30, 2009). This means the statute began to run on December 1, 2009. This action, filed on
August 4, 2016, falls outside the five-year statute of limitations and so the Court must dismiss
the breach of contract claim.
Unjust Enrichment (Count II)
As with the breach of contract claim, Lupin USA argues that the statute of limitations has
run on Blanchard’s unjust enrichment claim. Unjust enrichment claims in Illinois are also
governed by a five-year statute of limitations. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-205; Mann v.
Thomas Place, L.P., 976 N.E.2d 554, 557, 2012 IL App (1st) 110625, 364 Ill. Dec. 276 (2012).
Blanchard pleads that the claim accrued on October 11, 2011, when Lupin USA and Lupin India
launched the generic drug for which Blanchard did the related legal work. But Blanchard’s
unjust enrichment claim accrued earlier, at the time Blanchard completed its legal work for
Lupin USA and Lupin India at the end of October 2009 and Blanchard did not receive payment.
See Rubin & Norris, LLC v. Panzarella, 51 N.E.3d 879, 893, 2016 IL App (1st) 141315, 402 Ill.
Dec. 127 (2016) (cause of action accrues on “the date the services have been completed”). It
was at that time that Lupin USA and Lupin India unjustly retained the benefit of Blanchard’s
services, not later when they ultimately launched the generic drug. Additionally, the fact that
Blanchard may have had ongoing communications with Lupin USA or Lupin India since
November 2009 concerning payment does not affect the accrual date where Blanchard seeks to
recover the amounts reflected in its October 31, 2009 invoices. See Schmidt v. Desser, 401
N.E.2d 1299, 1301, 81 Ill. App. 3d 940, 37 Ill. Dec. 206 (1980) (agreement to defer payment did
not toll statute of limitations on quantum meruit claim where that agreement did not liquidate the
claim). Thus, because Blanchard filed its unjust enrichment claim more than five years after its
claim accrued, the Court dismisses the unjust enrichment claim as time-barred. 3
Lupin India has not appeared in this action, prompting Blanchard to file a motion for default against it.
But because the bases for dismissal of both the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims apply
equally to Lupin India and Blanchard had an adequate opportunity to respond to Lupin USA’s motion, the
Court denies the motion for default and dismisses the amended complaint against Lupin India as well.
See Malak v. Associated Physicians, Inc., 784 F.2d 277, 280 (7th Cir. 1986) (court may sua sponte enter
judgment in favor of additional non-moving defendants if motion by one defendant is equally effective in
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Lupin USA’s motion to dismiss. The
Court dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice. The Court denies Blanchard’s request
for default against Lupin, Ltd.  as moot.
Dated: April 5, 2017
SARA L. ELLIS
United States District Judge
barring claim against other defendants and plaintiff had adequate opportunity to respond to the motion);
Roberts v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., No. 1:11-CV-01438-JMS, 2013 WL 2467996, at *5 (S.D. Ind. June 7,
2013) (although three defendants had not entered appearances and it was not clear whether they had been
served, court could impute arguments made by other defendant to all of them and dismiss claims against
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?