Tag: cyberdrive

Secretary of State’s LLC File Detail Report Is Public Record – IL Court (A Deep Cut)

R&J Construction v. Javaras, 2011 WL 10069461, an unpublished and dated opinion, still holds practical value for its discussion of the judicial notice rule, breach of contract pleading requirements and a limited liability company member’s insulation from liability for corporate debts.

The plaintiff sold about $70K worth of construction materials to a concrete company associated with the individual defendant.  The concrete company’s legal name was WS Concrete, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company doing business under the assumed name, West Suburban Concrete.  Defendant was a member of the LLC and point-person who ordered supplies from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the individual and did not name the LLC as a party defendant.

The trial court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff failed to attach the written contract and there was no evidence the defendant assumed personal responsibility for the contract obligations.  The plaintiff appealed.

Result: Affirmed.

Reasons:

The Court first found the trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s suit for failure to attach the operative contract.

Code Section 2-606 requires a plaintiff to attach a written instrument (like a contract) to its pleading where the pleading is based on that instrument.  The exception is where the pleader can’t locate the instrument in which case it must file an affidavit stating the instrument is inaccessible.

Here, the plaintiff alleged a written contract but only attached a summary of various purchase orders and invoices to the complaint.  Since it failed to attach the contract, the appeals court found the complaint deficient and falling short of Section 2-606’s attached-instrument requirement.

The court next addressed whether the LLC File Detail Report (see above image), culled from the Illinois Secretary of State “cyberdrive” site was admissible on Defendant’s motion to dismiss.  In ruling the Report was admissible, the Court cited to case precedent finding that Secretary of State records are public records subject to judicial notice.  (Judicial notice applies to facts that are readily verifiable and not subject to reasonable dispute.)

Since the LLC Report plainly demonstrated the proper defendant was the LLC (as opposed to its member), and there was no evidence the individual defendant took on personal liability for plaintiff’s invoices, the trial court correctly dismissed the defendant.

Added support for the defendant’s dismissal came via the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act, 805 ILCS 180/1 et seq.  Section 10-10 of the LLC Act provides that an LLC’s contractual obligations belong solely to the LLC and that a member cannot be personally responsible for LLC contracts unless (1) the articles of organization provide for personal liability and (2) the member consents in writing.

The Court next addressed plaintiff’s agent of a disclosed principal argument.  The plaintiff asserted that since the individual defendant is the person who ordered plaintiff’s construction materials and it was unclear who the defendant represented, the defendant was responsible for plaintiff’s unpaid invoices.

The court rejected this argument.  It noted that under Illinois law, where an agent signs a contract by signing his own name and providing his own personal contact information (address, phone number, SS #, etc.) and fails to note his corporate affiliation, he (the agent) can be personally liable on a contract.  In this case, however, there was no documentation showing defendant ordering supplies in his own name.  All invoices attached to the plaintiff’s response brief (to the motion to dismiss) reflected the LLC’s assumed name – “West Suburban Concrete” – as the purchasing entity.

Afterwords:

(1) the case provides a useful analysis of common evidentiary issues that crop up in commercial litigation where a corporate agent enters into an agreement and the corporation is later dissolved;

(2) Both the LLC Act and agency law can insulate an individual LLC member from personal liability for corporate debts;

(3) Secretary of State corporate filings are public records subject to judicial notice.  This is good news for trial practitioners since it alleviates the logistical headache of having a Secretary of State agent give live or affidavit testimony on corporate records at trial.

 

 

Quantum Meruit Basics – Illinois Law

QMQuantum meruit (Latin derivation: “as much as he deserved”) has repeatedly saved the day in situations where my client has performed services for a defendant but there is a contractual defect (such as missing price terms or an unclear completion date)that makes suing under a breach of contract impossible.  Time and again, quantum meruit has proved to be a valuable fallback or “Plan B” to a failed breach of express contract claim.  The remedy has ensured that my client at least gets something in situations where it would normally get nothing.

I’ve found quantum meruit to be especially useful in view of the realities of modern-day business transactions.  In my experience, it seems that contracts are often entered into by people (usually non-lawyers) who are bound and determined to get a deal done.  No matter what.  This single-mindedness of purpose often results in a myopic focus on finalizing the agreement instead of a meaningful consideration of a deal’s details or the possible consequences that could flow from a future breach.  It’s no surprise then, that key contract terms are often omitted, agreements aren’t signed, or are signed by the wrong parties.

Bernstein and Grazian, P.C. v. Grazian and Volpe, P.C., 402 Ill.App.3d 961 (1st Dist. 2010) provides a good summary of  quantum meruit’s pleading and proof elements.  The case is a partnership dispute between two law firms fighting over  – what else? – fees.  The plaintiffs (a dissolved law firm and representative of a deceased partner of that firm) filed suit for monetary and injunctive relief against defendants,  two former law partners of the plaintiff firm and those partners’ current firm. 

The trial court ruled against plaintiffs on breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims but entered judgment for plaintiffs on a quantum meruit theory – awarding them 10% of the attorneys’ fees collected on open files which defendants’ firm assumed after plaintiff firm’s dissolution.  Id. at 965-966.   The First District reversed.  It held that there was insufficient evidence for the court to award 10% of attorneys’ fees earned on all pending cases which were formerly plaintiff’s (and were now defendants’ cases).  Volpe, 402 Ill.App.3d at 980. 

The black letter quantum meruit elements: (1) plaintiff performed a service to benefit the defendant; (2) he did not perform the  service gratuitously; (3) defendant accepted plaintiff’s service; and (4) no contract existed to prescribe payment for this service. 

The quantum meruit plaintiff has the burden of proving that valuable services were rendered by him, that the services were received by defendant, and the circumstances are such that it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the benefits of plaintiff’s services.  The measure of quantum meruit recovery is the “reasonable value of work” and the plaintiff must show that its uncompensated services were of measurable benefit to defendant.  Volpe, 402 Ill.App.3d at 979. 

The Court held that while defendants did benefit from plaintiff’s legal services, plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to substantiate the trial court’s quantum meruit award.  Id. at 979-80.  The plaintiff didn’t offer the court any basis to quantify the value of the plaintiff’s services.  As a result, the plaintiffs ended up with nothing.

Conclusion – I always file quantum meruit as an alternative claim to a breach of contract claim.  Illinois  Code Sections 2-604 and 2-613 permit alternative pleading.  This does two things: (1) it ensures that my client at least gets something in the event of a contract defect or if my client is in breach; and (2) it mitigates the all-or-nothing nature of only proceeding on a breach of contract theory.  When pleading quantum meruit, I also make sure I don’t incorporate by reference my breach of contract allegations.  

By definition, quantum meruit can’t co-exist with a breach of express contract claim.  Some firms love (and I do mean love) to file motions to strike complaints on this basis.  The Volpe case ( and others like it) shows that a quantum meruit plaintiff must do more than simply allege that he benefitted a defendant.  Instead, the plaintiff must produce competent evidence that quantifies the monetary value of plaintiff’s services.