United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh.
DAVID B. MCGARRY, Plaintiff,
GMRI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; DARDEN RESTRAINTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND BAHAMA BREEZE HOLDINGS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; Defendants,
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim [ECF No. 28]. The motion is fully
briefed and ripe for disposition. For the reasons that
follow, Defendants' motion is denied.
a breach of contract case in which Plaintiff David B. McGarry
entered into a contract with the Defendants to perform
certain remodeling work on their restaurant Bahama Breeze
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff claims that in
August 2013 he performed a portion of the remodeling work on
the restaurant, but at some point the relationship between
the parties broke down and Bahama Breeze refused to allow him
to complete the remaining work under the contract and did not
pay him under their agreement. Plaintiff filed suit against
Bahama Breeze in the Allegheny County Magisterial District
Court in 2014 seeking damages for the restaurant's breach
of contract. After Plaintiff filed suit, the Plaintiff and
Bahama Breeze entered into a settlement agreement for the
state court suit and Plaintiff discontinued the litigation.
The settlement agreement and release states in pertinent
McGarry, in consideration for the payment of the above sum,
does hereby release and forever discharge Bahama Breeze, its
assigns, agents, employees, former employees, directors,
officers, shareholders and insurers together with all other
persons, firms, successors, predecessor corporations, parent
corporations, and affiliated corporations from all,
actions, causes of action, suits, charges, claims,
debts, grievances, sums of money, and demands of any kind or
description whatsoever in law or in equity, known or
unknown, as related to or involving money owed for
work performed at the Bahama Breeze location at 6100
Robinson Center Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15205 in
September of 2013.
P to the Am. Compl. [ECF No. 23-1] at ¶ 3 (emphasis
added). The settlement agreement and release also provided
that the settlement payment was being paid
in exchange for the release of any and all remedies,
claims, common law and/or statutory causes of action
that McGarry possesses or may claim to possess against Bahama
Breeze, its assigns, agents, employees, former employees,
directors, officers, shareholders, and insurers together with
all other persons, firms, successors, predecessor
corporations, parent corporations, and affiliated
corporations as related to or involving money owed
for work performed at the Bahama Breeze location at
6100 Robinson Center Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15205
in September of 2013.
Id. at ¶ 4.
brings the instant breach of contract action seeking damages
for his lost profits in connection with the remodeling work
that Bahama Breeze did not allow him to perform.
move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on the ground that
Plaintiff's present cause of action is encompassed by the
terms of the settlement agreement and Plaintiff merely seeks
additional remedies for the same cause of action that was
settled and withdrawn from state court and alternatively
argues that the settlement agreement and release and
withdrawal of the state court action bars the present action
under the doctrine of res judicata.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
applicable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) is well settled. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule
12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.' ”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A complaint that merely alleges entitlement to
relief, without alleging facts that show entitlement, must be
dismissed. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). This “‘does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage, ' but
instead ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence
of' the necessary elements.” Phillips v. Cnty.
of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Nevertheless,
the court need not accept as true “unsupported
conclusions and unwarranted inferences, ” Doug
Grant, Inc. v. Great Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173,
183-84 (3d Cir. 2000), or the plaintiff's “bald
assertions” or “legal conclusions, ”
Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906
(3d Cir. 1997).
a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must provide more
than labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain,478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). “Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level” and “sufficient to state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.” 550 U.S. at 555.
Facial plausibility exists “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to ...