The plaintiff corporation sold seventeen containers of apparel to two defendant corporations: Trends Sportswear, Ltd. (Trends Sportswear) and Pretty Girl, Inc. (PG). Plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim against both defendants, alleging that the defendants did not pay for all of the shipments. The defendants argued that the breach of contract action should be dismissed as to PG because the four transactions at issue were between the plaintiff and Trends Sportswear. The court rejected this argument, ruling that because PG and Trends Sportswear were overlapping entities and the plaintiff had done business with defendants under both “trade monikers,” it would be premature to dismiss the action against PG at the pleading stage.
The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because, they argued, an unjust enrichment claim cannot survive where there is a clear and valid contract. The court also denied this motion, holding that because there was a dispute about whether there was a valid contract between the parties, the unjust enrichment claim should proceed. (Globatex Group, Ltd. v. Trends Sportswear, Ltd., 2009 WL 1270002 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2009))