Demand Electric Inc. v. Innovative TechnologyHoldings, LLC

Background

Innovative Technology Holdings, LLC supplied equipment and services to Demand Electric, Inc. and Demand Electric NYC, Inc. between early 2019 and June 2019. Innovative issued invoices for those goods and services. The Demand Entities did not pay the invoices except for a partial payment on Invoice No. 1190, leaving an unpaid balance on that invoice of $8,732.04.

Innovative had first sued the Demand Entities in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After the Demand Entities filed a separate action in the Southern District of New York, the Pennsylvania case was transferred to New York and consolidated with the New York action. The parties consented to proceedings before a magistrate judge, and discovery closed on July 30, 2021. Innovative later moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Innovative’s Breach-of-Contract Claim

The court applied New York law. It explained that a breach-of-contract claim requires an enforceable agreement, the plaintiff’s adequate performance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages. The court found that the invoices documented binding contracts because they identified the services or goods and the amounts owed, and the parties’ conduct showed agreement. The Demand Entities did not dispute that Innovative supplied the equipment and services, issued the invoices, or that the invoices remained unpaid.

The Demand Entities disputed the total amount owed and asserted that Innovative’s work did not meet industry standards. But their opposition relied on unsupported denials and a declaration that did not cite evidence supporting those allegations. Because they did not identify evidence creating a genuine factual dispute, the court granted Innovative summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim and awarded $395,433.64 for the unpaid invoices.

The court also concluded that the Demand Entities’ 21 affirmative defenses could not defeat summary judgment. The Demand Entities provided no factual support for those defenses and did not address Innovative’s arguments about them.

Innovative’s Unjust-Enrichment Claim

The court dismissed Innovative’s unjust-enrichment claim as duplicative of its breach-of-contract claim. Unjust enrichment is generally unavailable when a valid contract governs the same subject matter. Because the court found that the invoices were enforceable contracts covering the same unpaid goods and services, it dismissed this claim.

Interest

The court awarded prejudgment interest at New York’s statutory rate of 9% per year on the $395,433.64 award. It directed that interest be calculated from July 3, 2019, which the court selected as the midpoint between the dates when payment became due on the first and last unpaid invoices. The court also awarded post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, calculated from the date the Clerk enters judgment until the Demand Entities pay.

Demand Entities’ Claims

The Demand Complaint asserted claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The court held that the Demand Entities had not produced evidence showing that Innovative breached a duty, failed to perform its contract, breached a warranty, caused damages, or was unjustly enriched at their expense. The court therefore granted summary judgment dismissing all four claims with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Innovative’s motion for summary judgment. Innovative was awarded $395,433.64, plus the specified prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Innovative’s unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed as duplicative, and the Demand Entities’ negligence, breach-of-contract, breach-of-warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims were dismissed with prejudice.