SIB Development & Consulting, Inc. v. Save Mart Supermarkets
271 F. Supp. 3d 832
D.S.C.2017Background
- SIB Development & Consulting (Plaintiff) contracted with Save Mart Supermarkets (Defendant) to provide cost-saving consulting; Plaintiff would receive 50% of savings for 36 months.
- Plaintiff sued for breach of contract; Save Mart removed the case to federal court and asserted a counterclaim under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA), alleging deceptive trade practices and seeking relief including attorneys’ fees.
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss the SCUTPA counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing SCUTPA does not permit recovery where the only alleged damages are attorneys’ fees.
- The central legal question became whether attorneys’ fees (and costs) can satisfy SCUTPA’s required element of “actual, ascertainable damages.”
- The Court considered South Carolina precedent and federal pleading standards (Iqbal/Twombly) and concluded the counterclaim failed for lack of alleged actual damages apart from attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorneys’ fees alone can satisfy SCUTPA’s requirement of "actual, ascertainable damages" | Attorneys’ fees cannot constitute SCUTPA actual damages; statute awards fees only after plaintiff proves damages and a violation | Fees are recoverable as special/consequential damages (citing cases and treatises); Benedict College suggests fees can be special damages | Fees alone do not satisfy SCUTPA’s damages element; counterclaim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) challenges legal sufficiency)
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (American Rule: each litigant pays own attorneys’ fees unless statute or contract provides otherwise)
- Havird Oil Co. v. Marathon Oil Co., 149 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 1998) (elements required to prove a SCUTPA claim)
- Mull v. Ridgeland Realty, LLC, 387 S.C. 479, 693 S.E.2d 27 (App. 2010) (attorneys’ fees are distinct from actual damages under SCUTPA)
- Benedict College v. Nat’l Credit Sys., Inc., 400 S.C. 538, 735 S.E.2d 518 (App. 2012) (attorneys’ fees may be special damages in limited conspiracy context)
- Global Protection Corp. v. Halbersberg, 332 S.C. 149, 503 S.E.2d 483 (App. 1998) (attorneys’ fees recoverable under SCUTPA only after plaintiff proves actual damages and meets SCUTPA elements)