Tag: FRCP 9

False Info in Employee Time Records Can Support Common Law Fraud Claim – IL Fed Court

Some key questions the Court grapples with in Laba v. CTA, 2016 WL 147656 (N.D.Ill. 2016) are whether an employee who sleeps on the job or runs personal errands on company time opens himself up to a breach of fiduciary or fraud claim by his employer.  The Court answered “no” (fiduciary duty claim) and “maybe” (fraud claim) in an employment dispute involving the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).

Some former CTA employees sued the embattled transit agency for invasion of privacy and illegal search and seizure after learning the CTA implanted Global Positioning System (“GPS”) technology on the plaintiffs’ work-issued cell phones. An audit of those phones revealed the plaintiffs’ regularly engaged in personal frolics during work hours.

The CTA removed the case to Federal court and filed various state law counterclaims to recoup money it paid to the ex-employees including claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion. The Northern District granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the CTA’s counterclaims.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Sustaining the CTA’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against the ex-employees’ motion to dismiss, the Court looked to black-letter Illinois law for guidance.  To state a breach of fiduciary duty claim in Illinois, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) breach of the duty proximately caused damages.  The employer-employee relationship is one the law recognizes as a fiduciary one.

While the extent of an employee’s duty to his employer varies depending on whether the employee is a corporate officer, the law is clear that employees owe duties of loyalty to their employers.  Where an employee engages in self-dealing or misappropriates employer property or funds for the employee’s personal use, it can give rise to a fiduciary suit by the employer.

Here, the Court found that the employees’ conduct, while irresponsible and possibly negligent, didn’t rise to the level of disloyalty under the law.  The Court made it clear that under-par job performance doesn’t equate to conduct that can support a breach of fiduciary duty claim. (**6-7).

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The Court upheld the CTA’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim – premised on the allegation that the plaintiffs lied to the CTA about the hours they were working in order to induce the CTA to pay them.  Under Illinois law, a fraud plaintiff must show (1) a false statement of material fact, (2) known or believed to be false by the party making the statement, (3) with the intent to induce the statement’s recipient to act, (4) action by the recipient in reliance on the truth of the statement, and (5) damage resulting from that reliance.

Under the Federal pleading rules, a fraud claimant must plead the “who, what, where when and how” of the fraud but the allegation of a defendant’s intent or knowledge can be alleged generally.

Here, the Court found that the CTA sufficiently alleged a fraudulent scheme by the employees to misrepresent the hours they worked in exchange for their paychecks.  This was enough, under Illinois fraud law, to survive the employees’ motion to dismiss.  See FRCP 9(b); (*7).

Take-aways:

1/ While an employee owes an employer fiduciary duties of loyalty, his sub-par job performance doesn’t equate to a breach of fiduciary duty.  There must be self-dealing or intentional conduct by the employee for him to be vulnerable to an employer’s fiduciary duty suit;

2/ An employee misrepresenting hours work can underlie a common law fraud claim if the employer can show it paid in reliance on the truth of the employee’s hour reporting;

 

 

 

12(b)(6) Motions and Fraud Pleading Rules – A Case Note

image

Wojcik v. Interarch, Inc., 2013 WL 5904996 (N.D.Ill. 2013), provides a good summary of the factual allegations required to allege fraud and civil conspiracy claims.

The plaintiffs sued a national franchisor and its site development consultant for fraud and other business torts when their Saladworks franchise failed.  Defendants moved to dismiss all claims.

Held: motion granted in part; denied in part.

Reasons:  The Court first recited some key Federal court pleadings and motions rules:

– A 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint state a claim on which relief can be granted;

–  FRCP 8 notice pleading requires a complaint to contain sufficient factual matter that states a claim that is plausible on its face;

– a plaintiff doesn’t have to plead facts in his complaint that anticipate possible affirmative defenses  (FRCP 8(c)(1);

– FRCP 9(b) requires heightened pleading specificity for fraud and civil conspiracy claims including the ‘who, what, where, when and how’ of the fraud and the conspiracy;

– FRCP 9’s pleading specificity rules are designed to discourage a ‘sue first, ask questions later’ mentality and to account for the stigma attached to fraud-based claims;

– a negligent misrepresentation claim is not subject to FRCP 9’s elevated pleading rules;

– FRCP 12(b)(6) generally only looks at a complaint’s four corners except where the complaint either attaches or specifically refers to outside documents;

–  a court may consider exhibits to a 12(b)(6) motion if the exhibit supplements a document attached to the complaint or where the defendant relies on the exhibit for the ‘same purpose’ as a document attached to the complaint

*5-6, 11; FRCP 8, 9, 12.

Applying these rules, the Court struck several of defendants’ motion exhibits that either weren’t attached to or incorporated by reference in plaintiffs’ complaint. *8.

The Court then sustained the plaintiffs’ fraud claims against the franchisor defendants.

While a fraud plaintiff must specifically plead the “who, what, when, where and how” of the fraud, allegations of malice, intent, knowledge of falsity and subjective matters can be alleged generally.  FRCP 9(b).

Here, the plaintiffs fraud claims were detailed.  They specifically pled the defendants knowingly misrepresented and omitted material facts involving the restaurant’s projected profits, build-out and construction costs, and general operating expenses.  Taken together, the allegations satisfied the pleading requirements for a valid fraud claim.  Wojcik, *11.

The plaintiffs’ civil  conspiracy claims failed.

An Illinois civil conspiracy plaintiff must plead and prove: (1) an agreement to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means, (2) a wrongful act in furtherance of the agreement, and (3) injury to the plaintiff.  Wojcik, *11.

The agreement is the foundation of the conspiracy and requires proof of a defendant’s knowing and voluntary participation in a “common scheme” to commit an unlawful act or lawful act in an unlawful manner. 

Accidental, inadvertent, negligent or haphazard conduct is not enough to impose conspiracy liability on a defendant.  The plaintiff must plead the agreement’s critical details – including the “who, what, where, when and how” – to survive a motion to dismiss.  *12.

The Court held that plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims were too conclusory.  The plaintiffs merely parroted the elements of conspiracy and failed to plead critical details of the defendants’ agreement or their “common scheme” to harm the plaintiffs.  At most, plaintiffs pled negligence or breach of contract; not a conspiracy. *12.

Take-aways:

A court can consider external submissions on a 12(b)(6) motion where the challenged complaint incorporates or relies on an external document.  Wojcik also illustrates the required factual allegations that will satisfy Illinois state law fraud and civil conspiracy claims under Federal pleading rules.