5:12-cv-02810
N.D. Ala.Jan 2, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Trinetics International, Inc. and Tri-Ham, LLC allege DHL related entities breached contract and promissory fraud claims arising from a DHL Iraq contract.
- DHL Iraq allegedly failed to pay Tri-Ham for materials and services provided under the August 14, 2011 contract.
- A December 5, 2011 statement of account showed an unpaid balance; DHL Iraq did not object and admitted the statement’s accuracy.
- DHL AE, DHL Iraq’s related entity, was a primary contact for payments and allegedly promised Tri-Ham payment.
- Plaintiffs allege DHL AE admitted the debt and promised full payment; an April 2, 2012 email is proffered as supporting evidence.
- The court granted in part and denied in part DHL AE’s motion to dismiss: personal jurisdiction survived, but the fraud-with specificity and failure-to-state-a-claim dismissals were granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over DHL AE | Trinetics/Tri-Ham assert DHL AE purposefully availed Alabama. | DHL AE argues no jurisdiction on lack of minimum contacts. | Specific jurisdiction established over DHL AE. |
| Pleading promissory fraud with specificity | Promissory fraud allegations sufficient under Rule 9(b) and 8. | Complaint lacks specific representations, time, and persons; no particularity. | Promissory fraud not pled with specificity. |
| Adequacy of claim to constitute a viable fraud/contract claim | Debt payment promise sustains a fraud/contract claim. | Damages and causation not shown to be tied to the promise. | Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, separate from the contract breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (U.S. 2006) (motion to dismiss on factual allegations requires true allegations to be accepted unless controverted)
- Marsh v. Butler County, 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001) (acceptance of well-pleaded facts on Rule 12(b)(6) review (en banc))
- Carrillo v. S.E.C., 115 F.3d 1540 (11th Cir. 1997) (standard for personal jurisdiction under due process)
- Sloss Industries Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922 (11th Cir. 2007) (two-step approach collapses under Alabama law; minimum contacts analysis)
- Ex parte Lord & Son Construction, Inc., 548 So.2d 456 (Ala. 1989) (guarantee of payment supports jurisdiction under forum contacts)
- Steel Processors, Inc. v. Sue’s Pumps, Inc. Rentals, 622 So.2d 910 (Ala. 1993) (economic activity creating inter-state obligations supports jurisdiction)
- United States ex rel Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2006) (particularity requirement under Rule 9(b) for fraud)