Litigation Lawyers, Professional Association v. Harbison
4:24-cv-00793
| E.D. Mo. | Jul 29, 2025Background
- The case involves Litigation Lawyers, P.A. (plaintiff) and Christopher and Regina Harbison (defendants) related to a retainer agreement for legal services.
- The Harbisons asserted counterclaims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
- The court previously dismissed the legal malpractice claim and held breach of fiduciary duty as a surviving claim, requesting more information about the retainer agreement's execution to resolve remaining claims.
- Both parties agreed the retainer agreement was formed in Florida, making Florida law applicable to the disputed claims.
- The court addressed whether the Harbisons sufficiently pleaded claims for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.
- The court issued summary judgment on the choice-of-law issue and ruled on the motion to dismiss the remaining counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law applies to remaining counterclaims | Not directly disputed after briefing | Agreement formed in Florida | Florida law governs the claims |
| Sufficiency of good faith and fair dealing claim | Harbisons failed to allege damages | Alleged breach of express contract terms | Claim sufficiently pleaded; motion to dismiss denied |
| Sufficiency of unjust enrichment claim | Same facts as failed malpractice claim | Claims unjust enrichment due to retainer | Claim dismissed due to existence of express contract |
| Effect of not pleading breach of contract claim | Not addressed | Retained implied covenant/based on contract | Existence of contract still bars unjust enrichment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bookworld Trade, Inc. v. Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (duty of good faith performance requires an alleged breach of a specific contractual term causing damages)
- Williams v. Bear Stearns & Co., 725 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (existence of express contract defeats unjust enrichment claim)
- Diamond "S" Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (existence of an express contract prevents recovery on unjust enrichment theory)
- Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 896 So. 2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (good faith and fair dealing claim requires breach of a specific contract provision)