Cirgao41.com

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORKHARRYGAOandROBERTASOCALL,onbehalfofthemselvesandallotherssimilarlysituated,Plaintiffe,-against-JPMORGANCHASE&CO.
andCHASEBANKUSA,N.
A.
,Defendants.
Ir;.
:··u=s=n=c=s=D=N=Y=IDOCUMENTELECTRONICALLYFILEDDOC#:-----·DATEFILED:MCJ-1S.
__14Civ.
4281(PAC)OPINION&ORDERHONORABLEPAULA.
CROTTY,UnitedStatesDistrictJudge:PlaintiffsHarryGao("Gao")andRobertaSocall("Socall")(collectively,"Plaintiffs")bringthisputativeclassactionagainstDefendantsJPMorganChase&Co.
("JPM")andChaseBankUSA,N.
A.
("Chase")(collectively,"Defendants")forbreachofcontract,breachor"thecovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealing,fraudulentinducement,unjustenrichment,andviolationsoftheOhioandFloridastatestatutesprohibitingunfairanddeceptiveactsandpracticesfollowingtheterminationoftheircreditcardaccountsandtheensuinglossoftheircreditcardrewardspoints.
Forthefollowingreasons,themotionisgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart.
1Dockets.
Justia.
comBACKGROUND1RewardsprogramsforcardholdersareofferedbyalmostallmajorcreditcardissuersintheUnitedStates,includingChase.
Compl.
if1.
Theseprograms"enticeconsumerstoapplyforcreditcardsand,onceenrolled,tousethecreditcardsmorefrequently.
"Id.
TheChaseFreedomcreditcardispartoftheChaseUltimateRewardsprogram,pursuanttowhichcardholdersearnonepointor1%rebateforeachdollarchargedtothecard.
Id.
if5.
Advertisementsfortheprogram"tout[]thefactthatChaserewardspointsdonotexpire.
"Id.
Thepointsearnedbyusingthecard"haveareal,ascertainablevalue"andcanberedeemed"forcashormerchandise.
"Id.
if7.
In2011,GaoappliedforaChaseFreedomcreditcardataChaseBankbranchlocation.
Id.
if36.
Gaoreceivedthecardinthemail,alongwithacopyoftheUltimateRewardsProgramRulesandRegulations("ProgramRules")andacopyoftheCardmemberAgreement.
Id.
if36,Ex.
A,B,D,E.
From2011until2013,Gaomadenumerouspurchaseswithhiscreditcard,amountingtothousandsofdollars.
Id.
if37.
PursuanttotheProgramRules,Gaoexpectedtoreceiveonerewardspointforeverydollarchargedtohiscreditcardaccount.
Id.
Healsoexpectedthattherewardspointswouldneverexpire.
Id.
Gaoredeemedportionsofhisrewardspoints.
Id.
if7.
ByJuly2013,hehad10,000rewardspoints,worthapproximately$100.
Id.
if39.
Duringthistime,hehadnevermissedacardpaymentandhisaccountwasingoodstanding.
Id.
InJuly2013,heunexpectedlyreceivedwrittennotificationfromChasethathiscreditcardwasterminated.
Id.
if40.
Chaserevokedtheunredeemedrewardspointswhenterminatinghisaccount.
Id.
ChasedidnotcompensateGaofortherevocationofthesepoints.
Id.
1TheallegationsfromtheAmendedComplaintandtheattachedexhibitsaretakenastrue.
2Socall"appliedforandreceivedaChaseFreedomcreditcardinapproximately2006.
"Id.
if41.
In2010,sheappliedforandreceivedanotherChaseFreedomcard.
Id.
Withbothofthesecards,shereceivedcopiesoftheProgramRules.
Id.
Socallmadenumerouspurchaseswiththesecreditcards,amountingtothousandsofdollars.
Id.
if42.
Shemadethesepurchases"withthebeliefthatherexpenditureswouldresultintheaccumulationofrewardspointsorrebatesandthattheywouldnotexpire.
"Id.
if42.
TheProgramRulesspecificallystated,"Points/rebatesearnedinthisProgramwillnotexpire.
"Id.
AsofSeptember2011,Socallhadover12,000pointsentitlinghertoacashrebateofover$120.
Id.
if43.
Socallnevermissedamonthlycardpaymentandheraccountwasingoodstanding.
Id.
Socallredeemed"aportionof[her]ChaseUltimateRewardspointswithoutdifficulty.
"Id.
if7.
InSeptember2011,sheunexpectedlyreceivedwrittennotificationfromChasethathercreditcardswereterminated.
Id.
if44.
Chaserevokedtheunredeemedrewardspointswhenterminatingheraccounts.
Id.
ChasedidnotcompensateSocallfortherevocationofthesepoints.
Id.
ThiscaseisnotaboutGaoandSocallgettingtheirpointsbackoracashrebate.
Instead,theyseektorepresentonemainclassandtwosubclassesofputativeplaintiffs.
First,theyseektorepresenta"NationalClass,"consistingof"cardholdersenrolledinaChaseRewardsprogramduringtheapplicablestatutoryperiodwhowerenotinDefaultandhadtheiraccountsclosedandtheirrewardspointstakenwithoutcompensation.
"Id.
if48.
Gaoseekstorepresentan"OhioSubclass,"consistingofOhioresidentsenrolledintheRewardsprogram"whowerenotinDefaultandhadtheiraccountsclosedandtheirrewardspointstakenwithoutcompensation.
"Id.
Socallseekstorepresenta"FloridaSubclass,"consistingofFloridaresidentsenrolledintheRewardsprogram"whowerenotinDefaultandhadtheiraccountsclosedandtheirrewardspointstakenwithoutcompensation.
"Id.
if48.
3DISCUSSIONI.
ApplicableLaw"Tosurviveamotiontodismiss,acomplaintmustcontainsufficientfactualmatter,acceptedastrue,to'stateaclaimtoreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.
"'Ashcroftv.
Iqbal,556U.
S.
662,678(2009)(quotingBellAtl.
Corp.
v.
Twombly,550U.
S.
544,570(2007)).
Atthisstage,"[w]hentherearewell-pleadedfactualallegations,acourtshouldassumetheirveracityandthendeterminewhethertheyplausiblygiverisetoanentitlementtorelief.
"Id.
at679.
TheCourtdoesnot"assaytheweightoftheevidencewhichmightbeofferedinsupportthereof'butinstead"assess[es]thelegalfeasibilityofthecomplaint.
"Lopezv.
JetBlueAirways,662F.
3d593,596(2dCir.
2011)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted).
II.
AnalysisA.
BreachofContract2TostateaclaimforbreachofcontractunderDelawarelaw,aplaintiffmustallege"(1)theexistenceofthecontract,whetherexpressorimplied;(2)thebreachofanobligationimposedbythatcontract;and(3)anydamagesthattheplaintiffincurredasaresultofthebreach.
"YellowPagesGrp.
,LLCv.
Ziplocal,LP,2015WL358279,at*3(Del.
Super.
Ct.
2015)(citingVLIWTech.
,LLCv.
Hewlett-PackardCo.
,840A.
2d606,612(Del.
2003)).
DefendantsmovetodismissthecontractclaimbecausePlaintiffsdonotallegeabreachofanyexpresscontractterm.
Def.
Mem.
at5-8.
PlaintiffsrespondthatDefendantsbreachedthecontractbyfailing"tocompensatePlaintiffsforearnedbutunredeemedrewardspoints.
"Pl.
Mem.
at6.
Plaintiffsalsoarguethatcompetingprovisionsinthecontractrenderitambiguous,2ThepartiesagreethatpursuanttotheCardmemberAgreement,Delawarestatelawgovernstheircontract-baseddisputes.
SeePl.
Mem.
at5n.
4,Def.
Mem.
at5n.
5.
4andthataccordinglytheCourtshouldnotdismisstheclaimbecausetheambiguityshouldbeconstruedinPlaintiffs'favor.
Id.
at6-7.
Plaintiffs'argumentfails,andtheircontractclaimmustbedismissed.
Plaintiffshavepointedtonoprovisionofthecontract,orobligationimposedbythecontract,thathasbeenbreachedbyDefendants.
Plaintiffs'oppositiontothemotiontodismisssimplyreinforcesthatpoint.
Plaintiffsarguethattheyhave"adequatelypledthattheunwarrantedtakingofrewardspointsviolatesthetermsofthecontract,"id.
at6,buttheyfailtoidentifyanyprovisionofthecontractthatwoulddemonstratesuchabreach,eveninthefaceofDefendants'argumentthatsuchfailurewarrantsdismissalofthebreachofcontractclaim.
Plaintiffs'contractualambiguityargumentalsofails.
PlaintiffsassertthattheterminationprovisionintheProgramRules,whichstates"ifyourAccountisclosedforanyreason,yourmembershipintheProgramwillbeterminated,"contradictstheexpirationprovision,whichstatesthat"Points/rebatesearnedinthisProgramwillnotexpire.
"Id.
Theword"expire"isnotambiguousinthissituation,anddoesnotmeanthatthepointswillneverbecomeinvalid.
Ambiguityinacontractexistswhere"'theprovisionsincontroversyarereasonablysusceptibleofdifferentinterpretationsormayhavetwoormoredifferentmeanings.
"'PreferredInv.
Servs.
,Inc.
v.
T&HBailBonds,Inc.
,2013WL3934992,at*12(Del.
Ch.
2013)(quotingE.
I.
duPontdeNemours&Co.
v.
AllstateIns.
Co.
,693A.
2d1059,1061(Del.
1997)).
Plaintiffs'suggestedinterpretationhereisnotreasonable.
Readtogether,theexpirationprovisionclearlyconveysthemessagethatthepointsarenotlimitedtemporally,buttheterminationprovisionalertstheaccountholderthatmembershipmaybeterminatedandpointsforfeitedforreasonsotherthantemporallimitations.
Inaddition,theProgramRulesalsostatethatif"yourAccountisclosedforanyreason.
.
.
wereservetheright.
.
.
tocauseyoutoforfeit5anypoints/rebatesinyourAccount.
Ifyourpoints/rebatesareforfeitedforanyreason,wewillnotreinstatethesepoints/rebatestoyourAccount.
"Ex.
A,@1.
ReadingtheexpirationprovisioninthecontextoftheremainderoftheProgramRuleseliminatesanyreasonableinterpretationoftheexpirationprovisionasapromisethatacardholder'spointswillneverbecomeinvalid.
Accordingly,Plaintiffs'breachofcontractclaimisdismissed.
B.
BreachoftheCovenantofGoodFaithandFairDealingDefendantsmovetodismissPlaintiffs'claimforbreachoftheimpliedcovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealingforfailuretostateaclaim,arguingthattheexpresscontracttermsallowforterminationandforfeitureofpoints,andthereisnoevidencethepartieswouldhaveagreedtolimitDefendants'authoritytocausetheforfeitureofpoints.
Def.
Mem.
at8-11.
UnderDelawarelaw,apartyisliableforabreachoftheimpliedcovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealing"whentheirconductfrustratesthe'overarchingpurpose'ofthecontractbytakingadvantageoftheirpositiontocontrolimplementationoftheagreement'sterms.
"Dunlapv.
StateFarmFire&Cas.
Co.
,878A.
2d434,442(Del.
2005)(quotingBreakawaySolutions,Inc.
v.
MorganStanley&Co.
Inc.
,2004WL1949300,at*12(Del.
Ch.
2004)).
Theusageofthisdoctrine,however,"shouldbearareandfact-intensiveexercise,governedsolelybyissuesofcompellingfairness,"and"onegenerallycannotbaseaclaimforbreachoftheimpliedcovenantonconductauthorizedbythetermsoftheagreement.
"Dunlap,878A.
2dat441-42(internalcitations,quotationmarks,andalterationsomitted).
Theimpliedcovenant"functionsbyrequiringtheCourttodiscoveradditionaltermsfromanagreement;termsinlinewiththespiritoftheagreementbutabsentfromthoseexpressedbytheparties.
"BAESys.
Info.
&Elec.
Sys.
IntegrationInc.
v.
LockheedMartinCorp.
,2009WL264088,at*6(Del.
Ch.
2009).
6AllowinganimpliedprovisionprohibitingtheunilateralforfeitureofpointsbyDefendants,Pl.
Mem.
at8-9,wouldcontradicttheexpresslanguageofthecontractwhichexplicitlyprovidesforforfeiture,asdiscussedabove.
Thiscasedoesnotpresentasituationwherethecontractatissueimpliestheprovisionofrights_notexpresslyincluded,suchthattheCourtmustreadinsuchaprovisiontoensurefairnessandpreservethecontract'spurpose.
Insteadhere,thecontractspeakstotherelevantissue,andexplicitlypermitstermination.
TheCourtcannot"rewritethecontracttoappeaseapartywholaterwishestorewriteacontracthenowbelievestohavebeenabaddeal.
"Nemecv.
Shrader,991A.
2d1120,1125-26(Del.
2010).
ThecontractpermittedDefendants"totakethePlaintiffs'earnedrewardpointsfornoreason,"Pl.
Mem.
at9,andnocovenantwillbeimpliedtopreventconductwhichisexpresslyallowed.
Accordingly,Plaintiffs'claimforbreachoftheimpliedcovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealingisdismissed.
C.
FraudulentInducement3DefendantsmovetodismissPlaintiffs'fraudulentinducementclaimonthegroundsthat(i)theyhavefailedtoallegeamisstatement,intent,andreliance,and(ii)thatthefraudulentinducementclaimisinsufficientlydistinctfromthebreachofcontractclaim.
Def.
Mem.
at11-15.
3Intheiropposition,PlaintiffsarguethatDelawarelawdoesnotapplytotheirnon-contractualclaims.
Pl.
Mem.
at10n.
7.
Plaintiffsfailtoidentifywhatgoverninglawtheyseektoapply,butrelyonNewYorklawtosupporttheirfraudulentinducementandunjustenrichmentclaims.
DefendantsdonotopposetheapplicationofNewYorklawandnotethat"theelements[offraudandunjustemichment]arethesameunderbothNewYorkandDelawarelaw.
"Def:Replyat4n.
4.
Accordingly,theCourtwillapplyNewYorklawtothenon-contractualclaims.
SeeGoldenPac.
Bancorpv.
Fed.
DepositIns.
Corp.
,273F.
3d509,514n.
4(2dCir.
2001).
7AfraudulentinducementclaimunderNewYorklawrequiresaplaintifftoallege"(i)amaterialmisrepresentationofapresentlyexistingorpastfact;(ii)anintenttodeceive;(iii)reasonablerelianceonthemisrepresentationbyappellants;and(iv)resultingdamages.
"!
peonCollectionsLLCv.
CostcoWholesaleCorp.
,698F.
3d58,62(2dCir.
2012)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted).
Whereafraudulentinducementclaimconcernsthesamefactsasabreachofcontractclaim,thefraudclaimisonlypermissiblewhenitpointsto"afraudulentmisrepresentationthatiscollateralorextraneoustothecontract.
"LeMetierBeautyInv.
PartnersLLCv.
MetierTribeca,LLC,2015WL769573,at*6(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Feb.
24,2015)(internalcitationsandquotationmarksomitted).
Here,thereisnoactionablemisstatement.
PlaintiffsclaimthatthreestatementsconstituteactionablemisstatementsfromDefendants'promotionalmaterials:thestatementthattheprogramallowed"unlimitedearnings;"that"therewasnolimitontheamountofpointsearned;"thattherewas"noexpirationonpoints;"and"thattherewerenocapsorlimitsonearnings.
"Pl.
Mem.
at11.
Butthefaceofthecomplaintrevealsthatnoneofthesestatementsareuntrue,andthereforecannotbefraudulent.
Plaintiffsseekleavetorepleadtheirfraudulentinducementclaim.
WerePlaintiffstopleadtheirfraudulentinducementclaimbyallegingactionablemisstatementsinthepromotionalmaterialswiththespecificityrequiredbyFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
9(b),Plaintiffsmaybeabletopleadafraudulentinducementclaim.
SeeSchlengerv.
Fid.
Emp'rServs.
Co.
,LLC,785F.
Supp.
2d317,352-53(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2011).
WhilePlaintiffsdonotappeartohavethestrongestclaimforfraudulentinducement,theallegationsmeetthebaselinerequirementforleavetoreplead.
8Plaintiffshaveadequatelyallegedintent4andreliance,5andPlaintiffs'claimsregardingmisleadingpromotionalandadvertisingmaterialsrenderthefraudulentinducementclaimsufficientlycollateraltotheparties'contract.
See,e.
g.
,LeMetier,2015WL769573,at*6(citingSaleemiv.
PencomSys.
Inc.
,2000WL640647,at*4(S.
D.
N.
Y.
May17,2000))(fraudclaimnotduplicativeofbreachofcontractclaimwhereitisbasedonmisrepresentationsmadepriortoformationofthecontractwhichinducedentranceintothecontract).
TheCourtnotesthatithasnotconsideredPlaintiffs'argumentthattheyhaveallegedamaterialomissionbecauseofadutytodisclose,becausePlaintiffsdidnotmakesuchanallegationintheircomplaint;Plaintiffsmayseektoincludesuchaclaimintheiramendedpleading.
D.
UnjustEnrichmentDefendantsmovetodismissPlaintiffs'unjustenrichmentclaimsonthegroundsthattheclaimisbarredbecausetheparties'relationshipsaregovernedbyawrittencontract.
Def.
Mem.
at18-20.
WhileDefendantsarecorrectthataclaimforunjustenrichmentdoesnotliewhere'"avalidandenforceablewrittencontractgoverningaparticularsubjectmatter"'exists,Grant&Eisenhofer,P.
A.
v.
BernsteinLiebhardLLP,2015WL1809001,at*5(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Apr.
20,2015)(quotingJnreFirstCent.
Fin.
Corp.
,377F.
3d209,213(2dCir.
2004)),herePlaintiffsbringanunjustenrichmentclaiminthealternative,allegingthatthecontractisnotenforceable.
4PlaintiffshaveadequatelyallegedDefendants'motiveandopportunity,Pl.
Mem.
at13-15,andPlaintiffs'allegationthatDefendantssoughttocloseaccountspriortorewardsredemptionforfinancialreasonsisentirelyplausible.
5DefendantsarguethatPlaintiffsdidnotallegethattheyreceivedthepromotionalmaterialspriortoenteringintothecontractandthereforecouldnothavereliedonthem.
Def.
Replyat6-7.
TheCourtdrawsallreasonableinferencesinPlaintiffs'favoronamotiontodismiss,andsotheCourtinterpretstheComplaintasallegingthatPlaintiffsviewedsomeelementofDefendants'"pervasivemassadvertising,"Compl.
@5,priortoenteringintothecontract.
9UnderbothDelawareandNewYorklaw,ifthevalidityorenforceabilityofacontract"isindoubtoruncertain,""claimsofunjustenrichmentmaysurviveamotiontodismiss.
"REDUSPeninsulaMillsboro,LLCv.
Mayer,2014WL4261988,at*5(Del.
Ch.
2014)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted);accordDeWittSternGrp.
,Inc.
v.
Eisenberg,14F.
Supp.
3d480,485(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2014)(unjustenrichmentclaimcouldproceedwherePlaintiffhadpiedunenforceabilityofcontract).
Here,inadditiontothebreachofcontractclaim,Plaintiffshaveallegedthatthecontractbetweenthepartiesamountsto"anillusorypromiserenderingtherewardscontractunenforceable.
"Compl.
@86.
Defendantsarguethatitisclearfromthefaceofthecomplaintthatthecontractisenforceable,Def.
Replyat9,butthisisnotso,andwhetherthecontractwasillusorywillnotbedeterminedatthisstage.
WhiletheCourtholdsabovethatPlaintiffsdidnotstateaclaimforbreachofcontract,thatdoesnotequatetoaholdingthatthecontractisvalidandenforceable.
InlightofPlaintiffs'allegationregardingthecontract'senforceability,theCourtmaylaterdeterminethecontractunenforceable,andcouldthenconsiderinthealternativeaclaimforunjustenrichment.
Atthisstageinthelitigation,Plaintiffsmaypleadboththatavalid(breached)contractexistsandthatthecontractisunenforceable.
SeeIntellectualCapitalPartnerv.
InstitutionalCreditPartnersLLC,2009WL1974392,at*8(S.
D.
N.
Y.
July8,2009).
Accordingly,Defendants'motiontodismisstheunjustenrichmentclaimisdenied.
E.
StateStatuteViolationsUndertheOhioConsumerSalesPracticesAct(the"OCSPA"),OhioRev.
CodeAnn.
§1345.
01etseq.
,"nosuppliershallcommitanunfairordeceptiveactorpracticeinconnectionwithaconsumertransaction.
"Id.
§1345.
02.
TostateaclaimforviolationsoftheOCSPA,aplaintiffmustallege"thatthedefendantperformedanactoromissionthatwasunfairor10deceptive,andthattheallegedactimpactedtheplaintiffs'decisiontopurchasetheitematissue.
"Robinsonv.
KiaMotorsAm.
Inc.
,2014WL5155969,at*5(D.
N.
J.
Oct.
14,2014)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted)(applyingOhiolaw).
6Likewise,theFloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesAct(the"FDUTPA")prohibits"[u]nfairmethodsofcompetition,unconscionableactsorpractices,andunfairordeceptiveactsorpracticesintheconductofanytradeorcommerce.
"Fl.
Stat.
§501.
204(1).
AprimafacieclaimundertheFDUTPArequiresplaintifftoallege"(1)adeceptiveactorunfairpractice;(2)causation;and(3)actualdamages.
"Wrightv.
Emory,41So.
3d290,292-93(Fla.
Dist.
Ct.
App.
2010)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted).
PlaintiffsconcedethattheFloridaandOhiostatutesdonotapplytoChaseandagreetodismissthisclaimagainstChaseonly.
Pl.
Mem.
at20n.
18.
AstotheOCSPAandtheFDUTPAclaimsagainstJPM,DefendantsmovetodismissbecausethecomplaintcontainsimpropergrouppleadingagainstJPMandbecauseDefendants'conductwasauthorizedbycontractandthereforedidnotviolatethesestatutes.
Def.
Mem.
at15-18.
Defendants'grouppleadingargumentfails.
DefendantsassertthatthecomplaintfailstomakespecificallegationsagainstJPM.
Id.
at17-18.
ButDefendantshavefailedtoexplainwhythisresultsinthecompletedismissaloftheclaimagainstJPM.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
8requiresonlythatacomplaintprovide"thedefendant[with]fairnoticeofwhattheclaimisandthegrounduponwhichitrests.
"Twombly,550U.
S.
at555(internalcitations,quotationmarks,andalterationsomitted).
TheseclaimsagainstJPM,andthegroundsuponwhichtheyrest,areclear6TheCourtnotesitsdoubtsaboutPlaintiffs'abilitytomaintainaclassactionundertheOCSPAbecauseofthestatute'sclassactionnoticerequirement.
SeeRobinsonv.
KiaMotorsAm.
,2014WL5155969,at*4-5(D.
N.
J.
2014)(citingOhioRev.
CodeAnn.
§1345.
09(b)).
BecauseDefendantshavenotraisedthisprovisionasgroundstodismissPlaintiffs'classactionclaimundertheOCSPA,theCourtdoesnotconsideritforpurposesofthismotion.
11fromthecomplaint.
See,e.
g.
,Reichv.
Lopez,38F.
Supp.
3d436,462-63(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2014).
Accordingly,thisargumentisrejected.
DefendantsalsoassertthatboththeOCSPAandtheFDUTPAdonotallowclaimswhereadefendants'conductcompliedwithanexpresscontract.
Def.
Mem.
at18.
Defendantsmaywellbecorrect,butnotatthisstageoftheproceedings.
ThecasesreliedonbyDefendantsdonotshowthattheOCSPAandFDUTPAbarclaimswherethecomplained-ofconductcompliedwithanexpresscontractasamatteroflaw.
Englertv.
NutritionalSciences,LLC,2008WL4416597(OhioCt.
App.
2008),agrantofsummaryjudgment,foundnoOCSPAviolationwherethecontractatissuehadalreadybeenfoundenforceable.
Likewise,Zlotnickv.
PremierSalesGrp.
,Inc.
,480F.
3d1281(11thCir.
2007),heldthattherelevantcontractwasvalid.
AndChastainv.
NS.
S.
AcquisitionCorp.
,2009WL1971621(S.
D.
Fla.
July8,2009)doesnotholdthat,asamatteroflaw,compliancewithacontractshieldsadefendantfromtheFDUTPA.
EvenifsuchadoctrinecouldbefoundinthecasescitedbyDefendants,suchaholdingisinapplicablehere,wherePlaintiffshavealsoallegedtheunenforceabilityofthecontractandthedeceptivenatureofpromotionalmaterials.
DefendantshavefailedtodemonstratethatPlaintiffs'claimsdonotmeetthepleadingrequirementsofeithertheOCSPAortheFDUTPA.
NorhaveDefendantsdemonstratedthatthesestatutesbarPlaintiffs'claimasamatteroflaw.
PlaintiffshaveallegedthatDefendants'actsaredeceptiveandareentitledatthispointtoproceedwiththeseclaimsunderthesestatutes.
Accordingly,Defendants'motiontodismisstheseclaimsisdenied.
12CONCLUSIONFortheforegoingreasons,Defendants'motiontodismissisgrantedwithrespecttoPlaintiffs'claimsforbreachofcontract,breachoftheimpliedcovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealing,andfraudulentinducement.
Astofraudulentinducement,theCourtgrantsleavetorepleadbutonlyintheeventthatPlaintiffscanallegeactionablemisrepresentationswiththespecificityrequiredbyFed.
R.
Civ.
P.
9(b)byJune29,2015.
Defendants'motiontodismisstheunjustenrichmentclaimandtheOCSPAandFDUTPAclaimsisdenied.
ThepartiesaredirectedtofileacivilcasemanagementplanbyJuly2,2015.
TheClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoterminatethemotionatDocketNumber26.
Dated:NewYork,NewYorkJune9,2015SOORDEREDPAULA.
CROTTYUnitedStatesDistrictJudge13