Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Golden Unicorn v. Audible: Judge Furman denied Audible’s motion concerning the implied-covenant claim, allowing renewal at summary judgment.
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., Big Dog Books, LLC, and Audible, Inc.; the implied-covenant claim was not dismissed at this stage, and Audible may renew its damages argument at summary judgment.
What happened
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC sued Audible for breach of contract and breach of the implied promise of good faith.
Audible asked the court to dismiss the implied-covenant claim, arguing that a later appeals-court decision required dismissal because the two claims sought the same damages. The court concluded that more factual development was needed to determine whether the damages were actually the same.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Audible’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice to renewing the argument at summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC sued Audible, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. In an earlier order dated December 8, 2021, the court denied Audible’s motion to dismiss the implied-covenant claim as duplicative of the contract claim because the claims were not based on the same facts.
Audible’s Motion
Audible filed a renewed challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which permits judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are complete. Audible relied on the Second Circuit’s decision in JN Contemporary Art LLC v. Phillips Auctioneers LLC. Audible argued that the decision confirmed that seeking the same damages is enough to dismiss an implied-covenant claim that is pleaded alongside a contract claim.
Court’s Analysis
The court questioned whether JN Contemporary actually resolved the disagreement among district courts about when both types of claims may be pleaded. The court noted that the Second Circuit’s discussion consisted of a single sentence and did not expressly acknowledge or analyze that issue.
The court further held that, even if Audible’s reading of JN Contemporary were correct, additional factual development was needed to determine whether the plaintiffs’ two claims actually sought the same damages.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order DENIED Audible’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice to renewing the argument at summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 72.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.