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)

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
[phone]

3