Boyd v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
79 F. Supp. 3d 153
D.D.C.2015Background
- Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association, sues over lobbying efforts related to Cobell settlement funding.
- Defendants Gingold and Kilpatrick represented Cobell plaintiffs; Boyd alleges they sought and then withheld payment for his lobbying.
- Plaintiff alleges that, at Kilpatrick's urging, he expended time and resources to secure funding for Cobell; CRA became law December 2010.
- Gingold allegedly promised compensation but did not specify amount or timing.
- Gingold removed the case to federal court asserting fraudulent joinder of Kilpatrick to defeat diversity; the court must decide jurisdiction and, if necessary, remand to state court.
- Court grants remand to D.C. Superior Court and denies defendants' 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) motions as moot; rulings on merits deferred to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there subject-matter jurisdiction or proper removal? | Boyd argues removal was improper due to incomplete diversity. | Kilpatrick asserts fraudulent joinder defeats diversity; removal was proper. | Remand granted; jurisdiction lacking; removal improper. |
| Do the DC claims withstand a fraud-upon-remand inquiry (fraudulent joinder standard)? | Plaintiff contends a possible DC-law claim survives against Kilpatrick. | Defendant argues no viable claim against Kilpatrick. | Plaintiff shows a possibility of relief; not wholly nonsensical. |
| Do unjust enrichment, implied-in-fact contract, and quantum meruit survive under DC law? | Plaintiff asserts legal duties and benefits from Kilpatrick’s lobbying; payment expected. | Defendant contends no enforceable obligation or reasonable expectation to pay. | Plaintiff states cognizable DC-law claims; merits to be evaluated by state court. |
| Are the claims time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations? | Not time-barred given continuing obligation and resent perception of duty. | Argues accrual and last-rendition timing. | Not time-barred; limitations analysis reserved for state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court 1994) (jurisdictional objections must be raised early; burden on plaintiff to show basis for jurisdiction)
- In re Tobacco/Gov't Health Care Costs Litig., 100 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2000) (fraudulent joinder; limited inquiry; slight possibility of relief sufficient for remand)
- Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 1998) (remand guidance; court should avoid merits analysis when determining jurisdiction)
- Bregman v. Perles, 747 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (unjust enrichment; services conferred and retained; threshold cognizable claim)
- Rosenthal v. Nat'l Produce Co., 573 A.2d 365 (D.C. 1990) (elements of quantum meruit and implied contracts; mutual assent implied by conduct)
- New Economy Capital, LLC v. New Markets Capital Grp., 881 A.2d 1087 (D.C. 2005) (quantum meruit foundations; elements of recovery)
- LoPiccolo v. Am. Univ., 840 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2012) (statute of limitations for unjust enrichment; timing considerations)