The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Before the Court is Defendant Staffchex, Inc.'s ("Staffchex" or "Defendant") motion to dismiss the complaint and strike portions of the complaint, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement (the "Motion"). (See Dkt. Nos. 7-10).
The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers thereon, and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion. The Court grants Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice.
Plaintiff MDT TEK, LLC dba iLabor Network ("Plaintiff" or "iLabor") provides temporary personnel for various short-term or permanent staffing needs through its iLabor network. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 26, 2010, it entered into a network services agreement with Staffchex to use the iLabor network to find and select third-party temporary staffing vendors, and fulfill orders for temporary personnel. (Id. ¶ 7.) Pursuant to the agreement, Staffchex would pay iLabor a weekly fee of $2,885.00 for 104 weeks (i.e., two years). (Id. ¶ 8.) Between July 26, 2010 and May 24, 2011, Staffchex paid iLabor $38,000 in accordance with the agreement. (Id. ¶ 9.) After May 24, 2011, Staffcheck failed to make any further payments. On June 20, 2011, iLabor sent Staffchex a demand for Id. ¶ 12.) iLabor alleges $262,040 remains outstanding under the agreement. (Id. ¶ 13.) After Staffchex failed to pay this amount, iLabor brought this breach of contract suit, alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) declaratory relief. Pursuant to a choice of law provision in the agreement, iLabor argues that Pennsylvania law applies. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A plaintiff must state "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has "facial plausibility" if the plaintiff pleads facts that "allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion under Twombly, the Court must follow a two-pronged approach. First, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but "[t]hread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."
Nor must the Court "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Id. at 1949-
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Second, assuming the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must "determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 1950. This determination is context-specific, requiring the Court to draw on its experience and common sense, but there is no plausibility "where the well pleaded ...