Dwyane Wade's charter school project is embroiled in a legal dispute with an entity that alleges it was supposed to provide consulting services and help develop charter schools for 20k a month, but alleges it has not been paid.
Judge Marra has denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleges unjust enrichment in addition to the usual contract and quasi-contract.
I happen to like the simple, straightforward way that Judge Marra deals with unjust enrichment and Rule 8(a):
Next Generation next argues that Lichfield failed to assert all of the ultimate facts necessary for its unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims. Specifically, Next Generation contends that Lichfield failed to allege the specific services, the dates that the services were provided, and what benefits Next Generation retained.This isn't rocket science, people.
The essential elements of unjust enrichment are “(1) a benefit conferred on upon a defendant by the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and (3) the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1274 (11th Circ. 2009) (quoting Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So.2d 860, 876 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2006)).
In count IV of the complaint, Lichfield alleged, in part, that:
45. Plaintiff conferred a benefit upon NEXT GENERATION, which services and materials were appreciated and accepted by the Defendant NEXT GENERATION that resulted in a substantial benefit to NEXT GENERATION thereby.
46. Defendant NEXT GENERATION accepted and retained the benefits of LICHFIELD’s consulting, public-relations, political and other related services to and for the Defendant under circumstances that would make it inequitable, unfair and unjust for Defendant to do so without paying the value of said benefits and
47. Defendant NEXT GENERATION knew that LICHFIELD expected to be compensated for its efforts in an amount not less than $20,000.00 per month for a 12 month period, i.e., August 2009-August 2010.
48. Plaintiff LICHFIELD fully performed said services and provided all required consulting, public-relations, political and other related services to and for Defendant, which resulted in a substantial benefit to Defendant NEXT GENERATION.
Federal Rule of Procedure 8(a) only requires that a plaintiff include a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction”, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleading is entitled to relief”, and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Clearly, Lichfield fulfilled the pleading requirements for the unjust enrichment count since it properly alleged that a benefit was conferred upon Next Generation, Next Generation appreciated the benefit, and the circumstances make it inequitable for Next Generation to retain the benefit without paying for it.