MECO Electric Co., Inc. v. Siemens Industry, Inc.

Background

MECO Electric Co., Inc. brought claims against Siemens Industry, Inc. for breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment. MECO filed an initial complaint, a first amended complaint, and a second amended complaint. Siemens moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. He concluded that MECO’s breach-of-contract claim did not plausibly allege strict compliance with conditions precedent—contractual requirements that had to be satisfied before pursuing certain claims. He also concluded that the unjust-enrichment claim had been abandoned and, independently, did not allege facts suggesting that the subcontracts were invalid or did not control the dispute.

Judge Lehrburger recommended dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice, except for MECO’s breach-of-contract claim for contract-balance and retainage damages, which he recommended dismissing without prejudice. MECO objected only to the recommended dismissal of its “total cost” damages claim.

Court’s analysis

The district court determined that MECO’s objection was conclusory and merely repeated its earlier arguments. As a result, the court reviewed the challenged portion of the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review. The court found no clear error. It agreed that MECO had not plausibly alleged compliance with the contracts’ conditions precedent or explained how Siemens’s conduct made compliance impossible.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. It dismissed MECO’s second amended complaint with prejudice except as to the breach-of-contract claim for contract-balance and retainage damages, which it dismissed without prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Siemens’s pending motion to dismiss.