Mooradian Davis, PC v. Le Mobile, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 6 Motion to Dismiss and (2) Denying Without Prejudice Defendants' 7 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
Case 4:20-cv-12138-MFL-RSW ECF No. 13, PageID.174 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MOORADIAN DAVIS, PC, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-12138 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. LE MOBILE, INC., et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 6) AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 7) On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff Mooradian Davis, PC filed this breach-of-contract action against Defendants Le Mobile, Inc. and Guy Charbonneau. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.8-16.) Mooradian Davis thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint. (See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 4.) On September 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mooradian Davis’ First Amended Complaint. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6.) Defendants have also filed a motion for sanctions. (See Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 7.) The Court held a video hearing on Defendants’ motions on February 16, 2021. (See Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 12.) For the reasons stated on the record during the motion hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1 Case 4:20-cv-12138-MFL-RSW ECF No. 13, PageID.175 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3  Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED with respect to the portion of Mooradian Davis’ breach-of-contract claim arising out of the alleged failure of Defendants to reimburse Mooradian Davis for incurred expenses. As counsel for Mooradian Davis acknowledged on the record during the hearing, Mooradian Davis has failed to state a plausible claim arising out of that alleged breach;  Defendants motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED with respect to the portion of Mooradian Davis’ breach-of-contract claim arising out of Defendants’ alleged failure to consult with him in violation of Section Two of the parties’ consulting agreement (see ECF No. 6-2, PageID.75); and  Defendants’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 7) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 16, 2021 s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Case 4:20-cv-12138-MFL-RSW ECF No. 13, PageID.176 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 16, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764 3

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?