Facts

Mark Moses sued Innoprise Software Inc., Dennis Harward, Ann Harward, Harward Investments Inc., Harris Systems USA Inc., N. Harris Computer Corp., and M.S. Govern Co.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he began working for Innoprise as a consultant in August 2010 and that he was to be paid $125 per hour for up to $12,500 per month. Plaintiff further alleged Innoprise breached his employment agreement in that plaintiff worked for Innoprise through April 29, 2011, but that Innoprise failed to pay him a total of $71,500 for his work from November 2010 through April 2011. Plaintiff further alleged claims for quantum meruit and fraud against Dennis Harward and Ann Harward, as well as Harris Systems and N. Harris Computer as successor in interest to Innoprise. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants committed fraud by misrepresenting to him that Innoprise was a financially strong and viable company.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The Harris defendants argued that plaintiff's claim of quantum meruit failed because plaintiff did not confer any benefit on Harris. The Harris defendants further argued that plaintiff could not prevail on a fraud claim because plaintiff failed to show he relied on any representation made by Harris. Dennis and Ann Harward argued that they could not be personally liable because plaintiff did not confer any benefit on them personally.

Result

The court granted the summary judgment motions of the Harris defendants and Dennis and Ann Harward. The court held, in part, that plaintiff failed to show that Harris did anything to make plaintiff believe that Dennis Harward had authority to offer plaintiff certain commissions. The court also held that plaintiff's quantum meruit claim against Harris failed because there was no evidence that Harris asked plaintiff to work on its behalf. The court also held that there was insufficient evidence to support an alter ego theory against the Harwards. The court further held that plaintiffs quantum meruit claim against the Harwards failed because there was no evidence that plaintiff's work benefited the Harwards personally.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 11, 2012.