Moni 2, Inc. v. Safeguard Properties Management, LLC, 1:15-cv-00307

Background

Moni 2, a minority- and female-owned residential property preservation contractor, performed vendor work for Safeguard from 2011–Aug 2014 on 100+ projects in Detroit.
Work orders set scope, price, and completion procedures; hazard-claim work commonly involved two payments: initial ACV (prorated) and a later recoverable depreciation payment (RDP) upon insurer confirmation.
Moni 2 sued Safeguard seeking $397,972.98 for breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment; discovery narrowed disputed items to 46 work orders and $60,704.22, later further reduced by Safeguard admissions to $493.29 on four orders.
Safeguard moved for partial summary judgment, submitting affidavits, accounting spreadsheets, canceled checks, work orders, and communications showing two-part payments and adjustments for deficiencies.
Moni 2 argued payments were late (45-day deadline), contested Safeguard’s unilateral payment adjustments, disputed the RDP practice, and claimed an extra $6,000 for an unauthorized bathroom at 6743 Covert.
The Court reviewed documentary evidence and affidavits and granted summary judgment for Safeguard on 41 work orders, but denied summary judgment as to five orders (including the bathroom / quantum meruit claim and four orders Safeguard admitted owing).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Safeguard breached by paying after a 45‑day deadline	Moni 2: payments were late and interest is owed under a 45‑day term alleged in the complaint	Safeguard: no contractual 45‑day payment term appears in work orders; payments complied with contract terms	Court: No admissible evidence of a 45‑day contractual term; Moni 2 failed to meet burden — summary judgment for Safeguard on timeliness claim
Validity and notice of Recoverable Depreciation Payments (RDPs)	Moni 2: RDPs were not explained or part of the parties’ agreements; creates factual issue	Safeguard: work orders and remittance texts/emails expressly notified vendors of two‑part payments and RDP terms	Court: Work orders and communications contain RDP language; no genuine factual dispute — summary judgment for Safeguard on RDP contention
Legitimacy of unilateral adjustments / reduced payments for incomplete or deficient work	Moni 2: adjustments were improper; disputes completion, quality, and amount withheld	Safeguard: adjustments were documented in writing with rationale and provided dispute process; records support reductions	Court: Moni 2 offered no documentary rebuttal to challenge adjustments; summary judgment for Safeguard on most adjusted orders
Recovery for extra bathroom work at 6743 Covert (quantum meruit)	Moni 2: performed additional bathroom work by directive of Safeguard employee (Brandy) and seeks $6,000	Safeguard: no written authorization for additional work; it paid the approved amount only	Court: Genuine factual dispute exists as to whether extra work was authorized/paid; quantum meruit claim survives for that work order

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden rules)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and drawing inferences)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard)
Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Northfield Ins. Co., 323 F.3d 386 (summary judgment standard application)
Betkerur v. Aultman Hospital Ass'n, 78 F.3d 1079 (nonmoving party's duty to designate specific disputed facts)
Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399 (court not required to search record sua sponte)
Garofalo v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 95 (Ohio breach of contract elements)
Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (unjust enrichment elements)
Fox & Assocs. Co. v. Purdon, 44 Ohio St.3d 69 (quantum meruit principles)
Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St.3d 1 (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment recovery)