967 F. Supp. 2d 365
D.D.C.2013Background
- Pro se plaintiff alleges she conceived an invention for a removable cover for shoes in 1983, paid an invention office $395, and signed an "Inventors Record" dated January 11, 1983.
- Plaintiff claims the invention office (and its representative Robert R. Bourdeau) failed to pursue patenting/marketing and disappeared; she sent Bourdeau a letter dated May 17, 1983.
- Decades later plaintiff saw a product advertised (the Miche Bag) and sued Miche Bag LLC (named as Miche Bag Corp. in the complaint) for breach of contract and $20 million, claiming theft of her idea.
- The court construed the claim as breach of contract based on the Inventors Record and considered defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and as time-barred.
- The Inventors Record was a preprinted form identifying conception/disclosure dates but contained no terms (price, obligations, remedies) and was signed only by plaintiff and Bourdeau; no allegations tied Bourdeau to Miche Bag.
- The court found (1) the Record too vague to be an enforceable contract and (2) any breach was discovered in 1983, making the three-year statute of limitations dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Inventors Record is an enforceable contract | The Record evidences a contract obligating marketing/patenting and creates liability | The Record is a vague preprinted form with no material terms and Bourdeau did not bind Miche Bag | Not enforceable: Record lacks material terms and no basis to bind Miche Bag |
| Whether Miche Bag is bound by Bourdeau/Marketing Corp. | Bourdeau/Marketing Corp. acted to market her invention, implying obligation | No factual allegations linking Bourdeau or Marketing Corp. to Miche Bag; Miche Bag denies association | No basis to impute Bourdeau’s actions to Miche Bag; Miche Bag not party to Record |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff's pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) | Liberally construed, the complaint notifies defendant of claim | Complaint fails to plead plausible factual content showing defendant’s liability | Complaint fails to state a plausible breach-of-contract claim and is dismissible |
| Timeliness of the breach-of-contract claim | Plaintiff waited until seeing product on TV; suit filed shortly after that | Plaintiff knew of the alleged scam by May 1983; statute of limitations expired | Claim time-barred under D.C. three-year limitations period; accrual in 1983 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bond v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 828 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2011) (court cannot enforce a contract unless it can determine its terms)
- EastBanc, Inc. v. Georgetown Park Assocs. II, L.P., 940 A.2d 996 (D.C. 2008) (enforceability requires agreement on material terms and intent to be bound)
- Mero v. City Segway Tours of Washington DC, LLC, 826 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2011) (contract must be sufficiently definite as to material terms)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual matter showing plausible entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must plead factual content allowing reasonable inference of defendant’s liability)