Cosgrove v. Epsilon Data Management LLC
3:25-cv-00970
N.D. Tex.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Jeffrey Cosgrove, a former long-term employee (over 11 years) of Epsilon Data Management LLC, brought state-law claims concerning underpayment of sales commissions for the first and second quarters of 2024.
- Epsilon had Cosgrove work toward 2024 sales quotas using the expired 2023 compensation plan, then introduced a new 2024 plan that applied retroactively and significantly reduced commission credits.
- After raising concerns and purported retaliation (removal of major accounts), Cosgrove resigned and filed suit in Maryland, later removed to Texas under a forum-selection clause.
- Cosgrove asserted claims for violation of the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law (MWPCL), wrongful constructive discharge, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
- Epsilon moved to dismiss all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative for partial summary judgment; the court addressed only the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commissions are "wages" under MWPCL | Cosgrove claims unpaid commissions were promised compensation. | Epsilon argues no binding promise post-2023 plan; plan expired. | Dismissed; commissions not plausibly "wages" under law. |
| Wrongful constructive discharge | Claimed retaliation and intolerable conditions forced his resignation. | Actions alleged were normal management; no clear public policy violated. | Dismissed; allegations too conclusory; no clear mandate of public policy pled. |
| Fraud | Epsilon's representations about 2023 plan induced reliance, causing loss. | No actionable misrepresentation; no specific false statement pled. | Dismissed; insufficient, conclusory allegations. |
| Negligent misrepresentation & unjust enrichment | Relied on management's directions as to commission structure. | No plausible factual support for misrepresentation or unjust enrichment. | Dismissed; bare allegations, no details supporting elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility).
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (facial plausibility to survive motion to dismiss).
- Admiral Mortg., Inc. v. Cooper, 357 Md. 533 (commissions as wages under Maryland law).
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Wholey, 139 Md. App. 642 (elements for wrongful discharge under Maryland law).
- Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1 (elements for common-law fraud in Maryland).
- Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108 (elements for negligent misrepresentation in Maryland).
- Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281 (elements for unjust enrichment in Maryland).
Note: The court granted Cosgrove leave to replead within 28 days, identifying insufficient factual details in the initial Amended Complaint.