Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. v. Healtheon, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/11/2018. (ajn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAYNE HEAVY CIVIL, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-9496

HEALTHEON, INC.

SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 18) filed by defendant Healtheon, Inc. Plaintiff, Layne Heavy Civil,
Inc., opposes the motion. The motion, noticed for submission on January 10, 2018, is
before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. alleges as follows:
Healtheon is the prime contractor under a contract with NASA related to the John
C. Stennis Space Center. (Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶ 8). In August 2013, Layne entered into a
subcontract with Healtheon for the High Pressure Industrial Water Line Replacement at
Stennis, which is located in Hancock County, Mississippi. (Id. ¶ 9). The project
concerned constructing a new 96-inch pipeline to feed water to NASA’s upgraded rocket
engine test stands. Layne’s scope was to construct the 96-inch pipeline and all related
appurtenances. (Id. ¶ 10). Layne fully or substantially performed all work required under
its contract. (Id. ¶ 13). Healtheon has not paid Layne all monies owed under the
contract. (Id. ¶ 14).
Layne filed this action to recover the additional money owed under the contract
as well as payment for costs that Layne incurred outside of the contract. Layne has
asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
Page 1 of 3

Healtheon now moves to dismiss the unjust enrichment and declaratory relief
claims (Counts II and III). Healtheon argues that the claim for unjust enrichment cannot
exist alongside the claim for breach of contract, and that the claim for declaratory relief
is redundant.
In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all factual allegations
in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff=s favor.
Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
236 (1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the
foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550, U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413,
418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to Astate a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). AA
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.@ Id. The Court does not accept as true Aconclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.@ Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d

Page 2 of 3

690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
The Court is persuaded, for the reasons argued in Layne’s opposition, that the
motion should be denied. As Layne points out, the unjust enrichment claim applies for
the most part to the unpaid back charges for supply costs, which may or may not have
been part of the contract. There may be no other remedy at law for this recovery. See
La. Civ. Code art. 2298. As to the claim for declaratory relief, the Court sees no purpose
in dismissing it at this time and declines to exercise its discretion to do so.
Accordingly and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec.
Doc. 18) filed by defendant Healtheon, Inc. is DENIED.
January 11, 2018
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3