Opinion
No. CV05-4007212S
February 15, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE ( No. 113)
This case is the result of a dispute over charitable fund raising activities which the plaintiff allegedly agreed to perform for the defendant. The defendant has moved to strike the Second Count of the Second Amended Complaint, dated June 27, 2005, which count is a claim based on the theory of unjust enrichment. Defendant maintains that plaintiff has failed to allege that defendant owed it a contractual duty and "that the application of contract law to the alleged breach would produce an unjust result."
In Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 231 Conn. 276, 283 (1994), our Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must plead and prove three things to prevail on an unjust enrichment claim: "(1) that the defendants were benefited, (2) that the defendants unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits, and (3) that the failure of payment was to the plaintiff's detriment." In the present case, the operative complaint alleges that "The plaintiff has conferred benefits upon the defendant, specifically, the plaintiff has recruited new employers into the defendant's annual campaign . . .; [t]he defendant has unjustly failed to compensate the [plaintiff] for the benefits it conferred upon the defendant, specifically, the defendant has unjustly withheld any compensation for the benefit conferred upon it [and] . . .; [the defendant failed] to pay the full amount justly due and owing to the [plaintiff]." The plaintiff has set forth all the required elements of an unjust enrichment claim.
Defendant's reliance on Hartford Whalers Hockey Club is misplaced. This case does not hold that a plaintiff must plead that a remedy under contract law would produce an injustice. The Court simply stated that a lack of a contractual remedy is a precondition to the recovery of damages based on the theory of unjust enrichment.
The motion to strike is denied.