Dawn J. Bennett Holding, LLC v. Fedex Techconnect, Inc.

Citations: 217 F. Supp. 3d 79; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154516; 2016 WL 6602625Docket: Civil Action No. 2016-1388

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; November 8, 2016; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Dawn J. Bennett Holding, LLC filed a breach of contract and fraud lawsuit against FedEx TechConnect, Inc. The plaintiff claims FedEx failed to apply the correct discount rates under their pricing agreement and did not provide an accounting of payments and discounts. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges fraud due to misrepresentations regarding discount sizes. FedEx moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it is barred by res judicata, that the plaintiff did not meet the notice requirement of the agreement, that the complaint is time-barred, that the fraud claim is preempted by federal law, and that the complaint lacks sufficient allegations of breach of contract or fraud. The plaintiff opposed the motion but did not address the arguments related to the statute of limitations, preemption, or the sufficiency of the claims. As a result, the court granted FedEx’s motion to dismiss, noting that the complaint is time-barred. The background reveals that the plaintiff entered into a pricing agreement with FedEx in April 2012 to obtain discounted transportation services and paid a total of $139,036.76 in fees. The agreement incorporated FedEx's service guides, which limited claims for legal relief to one year for express shipments and 18 months for ground shipments. Concerns about not receiving appropriate discounts arose in January 2014, leading the plaintiff to withhold payments after a FedEx representative acknowledged a discrepancy in discount levels. A collection agency later pursued the plaintiff for unpaid fees.

On February 25, 2015, the defendant initiated a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court to recover unpaid transportation fees. Subsequently, on June 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit in the same court, alleging that the defendant breached their Agreement and committed fraud by not providing the appropriate rates. The defendant removed the plaintiff's case to federal court on June 30, 2016, and moved to dismiss it on July 7, 2016, citing several grounds: res judicata due to the prior adjudication in the collection action, failure to meet the Agreement's notice requirements, expiration of the statute of limitations, inadequate allegations of breach of contract or fraud, and federal preemption of the fraud claim. The plaintiff's opposition focused solely on the res judicata and notice requirement issues. 

The standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint must present sufficient factual matter to establish a plausible claim for relief. Legal conclusions within a complaint are not accepted as true, and a claim is only plausible if it allows for a reasonable inference of liability. The court must liberally construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, granting all reasonable inferences; however, unsupported inferences and legal conclusions may be disregarded. 

The analysis section notes that the plaintiff conceded the arguments it did not address in its opposition to the motion to dismiss, specifically acknowledging only the res judicata and notice requirement issues. As a result, the court may treat the unaddressed arguments as conceded, as per local rules regarding responses to motions.

In this Circuit, if a plaintiff only addresses certain arguments in opposition to a motion to dismiss, the court may treat unaddressed arguments as conceded. The plaintiff conceded that the complaint is time barred, does not state a claim for breach of contract or fraud, and that the fraud claim is preempted by federal law. Each of these conceded points independently supports the defendant's motion to dismiss. 

The typical statute of limitations for breach of contract in the District of Columbia is three years, and while there is no explicit period for fraud claims, they generally fall under the same three-year limitation. Parties can, however, contractually shorten this period. In this case, the plaintiff agreed to a one-year limitations period for claims under the Agreement, which incorporates the FedEx Service Guide. The Service Guide stipulates that claims must be filed within one year from delivery or when delivery should have occurred, and for overcharge claims, within 18 months. 

The plaintiff's complaint seeks an accounting from April 2012 to March 2014 but was filed in June 2016, exceeding the contractual limitation. The evidence suggests the plaintiff became aware of overcharges in January 2014, with claims limited to February 2014. The court concludes that the complaint is time barred due to the unaddressed arguments and the agreed-upon limitations period, resulting in the dismissal of the case.