Phillips Kiln Services v. International Paper Company, No. C02-4005-MWB (N.D. Iowa 6/3/2002), C02-4005-MWB.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C02-4005-MWB.,C02-4005-MWB. |
| Parties | PHILLIPS KILN SERVICES, LTD., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
On February 5, 2002, plaintiff Phillips Kiln Services, Ltd. ("Phillips Kiln") filed this action against defendant International Paper Company ("International Paper"). Plaintiff Phillips Kiln asserts two claims against International Paper which relate to work performed by Phillips Kiln for International Paper. Plaintiff Phillips Kiln's first claim is for breach of an express services contract between Phillips Kiln and International Paper for certain work to be performed on a lime kiln at International Paper's paper and pulp mill in Erie, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Phillips Kiln's second claim is for quantum meruit, or breach of an implied-in-fact contract, for services provided to International Paper from May 2001 to July 2001.
On March 20, 2002, International Paper filed a motion to dismiss Phillips Kiln's claim for quantum meruit or breach of an implied-in-fact contract.1 In its motion to dismiss, International Paper seeks dismissal of the quantum meruit claim on the ground that the breach of contract claim and the quantum meruit claim are mutually exclusive and a party that pleads a breach of express contract claim cannot recover under a quantum meruit claim. Phillips Kiln filed a timely resistance to International Paper's Motion To Dismiss in which it asserts that it is not seeking to recover for the same work under both its breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. As a result, Phillips Kiln contends that its two claims are not mutually exclusive and the court should deny International Paper's Motion To Dismiss. Phillips Kiln argues that even if a party who pleads an express contract cannot recover under a quantum meruit claim, this does not foreclose a party from pleading these as separate, alternative theories.
Although the court initially granted defendant International Paper's request for oral arguments on its motion to dismiss, after an examination of the briefs and the record, the court has concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The court turns first to a discussion of facts alleged in the complaint then to the standards applicable to motions to dismiss and, finally, to the legal analysis of whether Philips Kiln has alleged a claim for quantum meruit upon which relief may be granted.
The factual background for disposition of these motions is based entirely on the facts as alleged in the complaint.
Plaintiff Phillips Kiln is an Iowa Corporation with an office located in Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant International Paper is a New York Corporation, with its principal office located in Purchase, New York. On February 7, 2001, Phillips Kiln and International Paper executed a Services Contract.2 The contract provided that Phillips Kiln would provide all supervision, labor, equipment, and tools necessary to perform a lime kiln shell replacement at International Paper's mill at Erie, Pennsylvania. The contract provided that International Paper would pay Phillips Kiln for the services covered under the contract based on Phillips Kiln's proposal.3 The proposal provides that the scope of the job would include:
PRE-JOB:
1. Arrive at plant site. Review job scope and safety requirements with customer representatives.
2. Remove roof and sides of building over kiln as required.
MAIN JOB:
1. Set up equipment and any necessary cribbing, slide tire #2 uphill.
2. Install necessary spider bracing on the inside of the kiln next to the cut lines.
3. Mark cut lines outside of kiln shell.
4. Cut and remove designated portions of old kiln shell section.
5. Set new shell section into position and align seams with adjusting hardware.
6. Remove spider bracing and any necessary cribbing.
7. Take radial runouts on section.
8. Weld outside field joint(s). Back gouge and weld inside field joints.
9. Push the #1 tire off.
10. Remove the old filler bars and weld repair any shell cracks on a time and material basis.
11. Determine the amount of new filler bar thickness, start installing some of the new bars.
12. Slide the tire back into place and install the remaining filler bars.
13. Dial the tire in for minimum runouts.
14. Install the retaining hardware.
15. Remove the carry rolls from the #1 pier.
16. Jack hammer out old grout and concrete as needed.
17. Lift base and acid wash pier top.
18. Set shim packs into place and position base.
19. Pour new concrete and grout. Allow 24 hours to cure.
20. Reset the carrying rollers.
21. Clean up work area, present job for approval, tear down equipment, and load out.
Commencing in May of 2001, Phillips Kiln performed various work for International Paper, including the replacement of a lime kiln shell, the replacement of filler bars, resetting the base of a lime kiln, in addition to other work related to the kiln. Phillips Kiln billed International Paper for the services it performed and demanded payment for the services. International Paper has refused to make payment to Phillips Kiln.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides:
(b) Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: . . . (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. . . .
"A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law." North Star Int'l v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Yuba Consolidated Gold Fields v. Kilkeary, 206 F.2d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 1953)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Botz v. Omni Air Int'l, 286 F.3d 488, 489 (8th Cir. 2002); accord Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972); Meyer v. City of Joplin, 281 F.3d 759, 760 (8th Cir. 2002); Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001); Whitmore v. Harrington, 204 F.3d 784, 784 (8th Cir. 2000); Anderson v. Franklin County, Mo., 192 F.3d 1125, 1131 (8th Cir. 1999); Gross v. Weber, 186 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir. 1999); Midwestern Mach. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 167 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1999); Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 829 F.2d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir. 1987). A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only if, taking the allegations as true, "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Knapp v. Hanson, 183 F.3d 786, 788 (8th Cir. 1999) () (quoting Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986), and citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). This court also observes that a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) does not test whether the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, but rather tests whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
Furthermore, pertinent to this 12(b)(6) motion, the court is mindful that in treating the factual allegations of a complaint as true pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), "the court is free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations." Wiles v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2002); Silver v. H & R Block, Inc., 105 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir. 1997) (); Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990) (); see also LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Hous. Auth., 55 F.3d 1097, 1103 (6th Cir. 1995) (). Conclusory allegations need not and will not be taken as true; rather, the court will consider whether the facts alleged in the complaint, accepted as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Silver, 105 F.3d at 397; Westcott, 901 F.2d at 1488. The court will apply these standards to International Paper's motion to dismiss Phillips Kiln's quantum meruit claim.
International Paper contends that Phillips Kiln's quantum meruit claim should be dismissed because the breach of contract claim and the quantum meruit claim are mutually exclusive and a party that pleads a breach of express contract claim cannot recover under a quantum meruit claim.4 Phillips Kiln responds that because it is not seeking to recover for the same work under both its breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, the two claims are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Phillips Kiln argues that even if a party who pleads an express contract cannot recover under a quantum meruit claim, this does not foreclose a party from pleading these theories alternatively.
To continue reading
Request your trial