Motorcars Honda, Inc. v. TechAid Auto Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
17
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/1/16. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, grants the motion to dismiss of defendant Bruce Madden. (Related Doc. 6 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
MOTORCARS HONDA, INC.
:
:
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-02274
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
OPINION & ORDER
:
[Resolving Doc. 6]
TECHAID AUTO SYSTEMS, INC., et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this breach of contract and unjust enrichment case, Defendant Bruce Madden moves to
dismiss Plaintiff Motorcars Honda, Inc.’s (“Motorcars”) complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). 1 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Madden’s
motion.
With his November 4, 2015 motion, Madden says that the agreement for a SemiAutomated Vehicle Servicing System that underlies Plaintiff Motorcars’ complaint is between
Plaintiff and Defendant TechAid Auto Systems, Inc. (“TechAid”). Defendant Madden is
president of TechAid. Defendant Madden says that he signed the contested agreement as
TechAid’s president but is not a party to the agreement and is therefore not liable for any alleged
harm to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant Madden’s motion to dismiss within this Court’s set
time limit.2
Furthermore, this Court agrees that Plaintiff does not make out a claim against Defendant
Madden. “It is fundamental contract law that one cannot be liable for a breach of contract unless
1
2
Doc. 6.
See third non-document docket entry dated February 16, 2016.
Case No. 15-cv-2274
Gwin, J.
one is a party to that contract.” 3 Presidents act as representatives of the company when signing
agreements. They are not parties to the agreement unless some language in the agreement shows
an intent for the president to also be a party. 4 In this case, the agreement does not indicate that
Defendant Madden is a party to the contract. Plaintiff makes no showing that corporate veil
piercing or any other method of attaching individual liability to Defendant Madden applies.
Therefore, this Court cannot give Plaintiff the relief it seeks from Defendant Madden in its
complaint.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Madden’s motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 1, 2016
3
Electron Energy Corp. v. Short, 597 A.2d 175, 177 (Pa. Super. 1991) aff'd, 618 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1993) (citing Viso
v. Werner, 369 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1977)).
4
Id. at 568 (citing Viso, 369 A.2d at 1188 (1977)).
-2-
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?