District Judge Denis R. Hurley

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Under their 2015 contract “broker” Global Funding Grp. agreed to obtain a mortgage loan commitment and/or equity partner for defendant “borrowers’” planned construction project. Global obtained a “Letter of Interest” LOI as to High Rises LLC’s interest in providing $12 million in funding. In its removed lawsuit, district court dismissed Global’s complaint charging defendants’ breach of contract because it was entitled to a 10 percent fee. The court found the LOI was not a “Loan Commitment from a Lender or Bank and/or a JV Partnership Agreement” such that defendants were required to pay the fee. Global’s amended complaint charged defendants’ breach of the agreement’s Borrowers’ Breach and Non-circumvent clauses. Finding the parties’ agreement ambiguous, the court denied dismissal of Global’s breach claim. However, its fraud claim was dismissed as resting entirely on allegations that defendants did not intend to comply with the terms of their valid, and enforceable contract. Global’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations were the same terms of the contract supporting its breach claims. The court also dismiss Global’s unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and account stated claims as duplicative of its contract breach claims.

District Judge Denis R. Hurley

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Under their 2015 contract “broker” Global Funding Grp. agreed to obtain a mortgage loan commitment and/or equity partner for defendant “borrowers’” planned construction project. Global obtained a “Letter of Interest” LOI as to High Rises LLC’s interest in providing $12 million in funding. In its removed lawsuit, district court dismissed Global’s complaint charging defendants’ breach of contract because it was entitled to a 10 percent fee. The court found the LOI was not a “Loan Commitment from a Lender or Bank and/or a JV Partnership Agreement” such that defendants were required to pay the fee. Global’s amended complaint charged defendants’ breach of the agreement’s Borrowers’ Breach and Non-circumvent clauses. Finding the parties’ agreement ambiguous, the court denied dismissal of Global’s breach claim. However, its fraud claim was dismissed as resting entirely on allegations that defendants did not intend to comply with the terms of their valid, and enforceable contract. Global’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations were the same terms of the contract supporting its breach claims. The court also dismiss Global’s unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and account stated claims as duplicative of its contract breach claims.