AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc. v. John
2:23-cv-01980
S.D. OhioMar 19, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, AGC Flat Glass North America, alleges a multi-year embezzlement scheme by several defendants, including Samuel Oduro, leading to over $1 million in losses.
- Oduro operated a tax preparation business and was allegedly involved in the scheme by receiving and processing illicit funds.
- Plaintiff brought five claims against Oduro: conversion, civil theft, unjust enrichment, civil RICO, and civil conspiracy.
- Oduro filed a motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The court’s analysis focused on whether each claim was sufficiently supported by factual allegations under federal pleading standards.
- Plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint, which was denied for dismissed claims as the deficiencies were not merely technical.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion | Oduro stole specific funds from Plaintiff. | Plaintiff did not identify specific money. | Dismissed—no allegation of specifically earmarked money. |
| Civil Theft | Oduro participated in theft/received stolen property. | Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege theft. | Not dismissed—sufficient allegation of theft offense. |
| Unjust Enrichment | Oduro was unjustly enriched by stolen funds. | No direct benefit conferred by Plaintiff. | Dismissed—no benefit directly conferred by Plaintiff. |
| Civil RICO | Oduro was part of a racketeering scheme targeting Plaintiff. | Only a single scheme/victim alleged. | Dismissed—allegations do not meet "pattern" requirement. |
| Civil Conspiracy | Oduro conspired with others to embezzle from Plaintiff. | Complaint lacks specifics of conspiracy. | Not dismissed—sufficient facts for conspiracy. |
| Leave to Amend | Seek permission to add facts to dismissed claims. | Should not be given due to lack of viable claim. | Denied—amendment futile for dismissed claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (requirements for stating a claim and plausibility)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (elements for a RICO claim)
- Lee v. Ohio Educ. Ass'n, 951 F.3d 386 (requirements for a conversion claim)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 834 N.E.2d 791 (requirements for unjust enrichment under Ohio law)
- Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101 (meaning of a pattern for RICO claims)