Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 01-2130-CM
September 24, 2001
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff originally brought this action in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, alleging wrongful discharge, wage and hour violations, breach of contract, and quantum meruit. The action was thereafter removed to federal court. This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 26).
I. Standard
The court will dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim only when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the theory of recovery that would entitle him or her to relief, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957);Maher v. Durango Metals. Inc., 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 1998), or when an issue of law is dispositive, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). The court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations,Maher, 144 F.3d at 1304, and all reasonable inferences from those facts are viewed in favor of the plaintiff, Witt v. Roadway Express, 136 F.3d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir. 1998). The issue in resolving a motion such as this is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he or she is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
The Federal Rules have established a liberal standard of "notice pleading" in which "technical forms of pleading" are not required, but instead, a plaintiff's factual pleading must merely contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (e)(1). The Supreme Court has explained that the Federal Rules "do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the rules require is 'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley, 355 U.S. at 47. Accordingly, "factual pleading is required only insofar as it is necessary to place a defendant on notice as to the type of claim alleged and the grounds upon which it rests, thereby enabling a defendant to prepare a responsive pleading." Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Labs., 630 F.2d 1383, 1388 (10th Cir. 1980).
II. Discussion
Defendant argues that plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Defendant contends that plaintiff fails to assert factual support for any of her claims and that the majority of plaintiff s allegations are conclusory in nature. Plaintiff asserts that her complaint meets the minimal standards of notice pleading.
A. Wrongful Discharge
Count I of plaintiff s complaint asserts a claim for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that there existed a written employment agreement between plaintiff and defendant (Verified Petition for Damages, ¶ 3); that plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-313 et seg. (Id. ¶ 4); that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged from her employment by defendant acting in retaliation for making known illegal acts with regard to employing persons without proper work visas (Id. ¶ 5); that plaintiff suffered damages as a result (Id. ¶ 7); and that defendant's conduct was knowing, intentional, and willful (Id. ¶ 8).
Under Kansas law, the elements of a claim for retaliatory discharge for whistle-blowing require a plaintiff prove that her employer was engaged in activities in violation of rules, regulations, or the law pertaining to public health, safety, and the general welfare; the employer had knowledge of the plaintiff's reporting of such a violation prior to discharge of the plaintiff; and the plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for making the report. Palmer v. Brown, 242 Kan. 893, 900, 752 P.2d 685, 690 (1988). In this case, accepting the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court finds that plaintiff has stated a claim for wrongful discharge under Kansas law and, therefore, denies defendant's motion to dismiss regarding Count I.
B. Wage and Hour Violations
Count II of plaintiff s complaint alleges that defendant has failed and refused to pay plaintiff amounts owed as commissions. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, as of the date of plaintiff's termination, defendant knew or should have known that it owed plaintiff commissions pursuant to the employment agreement and accepted practice of the parties (Verified Petition for Damages, ¶ 10); that defendant's refusal to pay such commissions is in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann § 44-313et seq. (Id. ¶ 11); and that plaintiff has suffered an economic loss as a result (Id. ¶ 12). The court finds that, under the liberal standards of notice pleading, plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state a claim for wage and hour violations under Kansas statutory law. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss this count is denied.
C. Breach of Contract
Count III of plaintiff s complaint alleges a breach of contract. Specifically, plaintiff asserts in her complaint the existence of an employment agreement (Id. ¶ 3); that plaintiff fully and satisfactorily performed her obligations under the employment agreement (Id. ¶ 15); and that defendant breached the employment agreement by failing to pay compensation owed plaintiff and by wrongfully terminating her employment (Id. ¶ 14). The court finds that plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract, see Commercial Credit Corp. v. Harris, 212 Kan. 310, 313, 510 P.2d 1322, 1325 (1973), and denies defendant's motion to dismiss this count.
D. Quantum Meruit
Plaintiff asserts in Count IV a claim based on quantum meruit. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that she provided services to defendant at the special instance of defendant (Verified Petition for Damages, ¶ 18); that defendant promised to pay the reasonable value of her services (Id. ¶ 19); that the fair and reasonable costs for such services are due and owing to plaintiff (Id. ¶ 20); and that defendant refuses to pay such amount (Id. ¶ 21).
Quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine and requires proof of (1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) an appreciation or knowledge of the benefit by the defendant; and (3) the acceptance or retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value. Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Servs. Ltd., 259 Kan. 156, 176, 910 P.2d 839, 845 (1996). In this case, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of a claim based on quantum meruit. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to this count.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 26) is denied.