Brown v. Myers, 3:15-cv-00447

B&M HiTech Electric (sole proprietorship owned by William Brown, Jr.) subcontracted with Watson Electrical on a Richmond City Jail project; subcontract price ~$1.875 million.
The Project used a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (CCIP); plaintiffs allege they were told it would cost them nothing but later were charged based on payroll estimates and adjustments.
At closeout Watson paid B&M $5,869 (check stamped "Final Payment in Full"); B&M alleges it was owed $87,155 and claims deductions (back charges) totaled about $66,208.
Brown (pro se) sued Watson Electrical and four individual defendants asserting three claims: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1981 discrimination; (2) fraud; and (3) breach of contract.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); plaintiffs filed motions opposing a rebuttal brief and requesting immediate trial/settlement. The Court considered briefing and oral arguments.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss all counts for failure to state claims and denied the plaintiffs’ other motions as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1981 claim was sufficiently pleaded	Brown: final-payment language and reduced payment reflect racial discrimination against minority-owned B&M	Defendants: deductions were contract-based, no factual allegations of discriminatory intent	Dismissed — § 1981 allegation is conclusory, lacks facts showing discrimination or intent
Whether fraud was pleaded with requisite particularity (Rule 9(b))	Brown: defendants misrepresented/failed to disclose CCIP costs, inducing contract	Defendants: allegations are vague, lack who, when, what, where; legal conclusion without particulars	Dismissed — fraud elements and particularity not pleaded; fraud claim not shown independent of contract theory
Whether breach of contract pleaded against all defendants	Brown: contract existed and deductions were improper breach	Defendants: only Watson Electrical was party to subcontract; individual defendants not shown to have contractual obligations	Dismissed — complaint fails to allege contractual obligations or factual basis tying actions to breach; no contractual provisions identified
Whether plaintiffs’ procedural motions remain viable after dismissal	Brown: opposed rebuttal brief and sought immediate trial/settlement	Defendants: dismissal moots those requests	Denied as moot — dismissal of complaint disposes of those motions

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations)
Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp., 458 F.3d 332 (standards for 12(b)(6) review in the Fourth Circuit)
McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Dep't of Transp., 780 F.3d 582 (Rule 8 notice pleading discussion)
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (12(b)(6) dismissal where plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts entitling relief)
Bank of Montreal v. Signet Bank, 193 F.3d 818 (elements of common-law fraud applied)
Fransmart, LLC v. Freshii Development, LLC, 768 F. Supp. 2d 851 (elements of fraud in the inducement under Virginia law)
Filak v. George, 267 Va. 612 (elements of breach of contract under Virginia law)