SAN FRANCISCO – Pearson Education recently gained a partial victory in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California when a judge approved one of its two motions in breach of contract lawsuit concerning the sale of educational products.
This lawsuit was filed by Dr. Judy Codding against Pearson Education, claiming breach of contract concerning some educational courses she had produced.
In a ruling filed Sept. 18, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted Pearson's motion to dismiss an anticipatory-breach claim in an amended lawsuit filed by Dr. Judy Codding claiming breach of contract concerning some educational courses she had produced.
This legal action is based on the claims of Codding, who in 2010 signed an agreement with Pearson Education Inc., a subsidiary of Pearson plc, an education and information company, to develop education-course offerings known as the Pearson System of Courses. She was promised a bonus payment if sales of these courses exceeded a certain level. Sales did not reach a level allowing a bonus to be paid, and Codding alleged that Pearson did not adequately promote the sale of these courses. In her suit, she charged the company with breach of contract.
Pearson Education filed a motion to dismiss Dr. Codding’s breach of contract claim and also a motion to dismiss her anticipatory-breach claim.
In her ruling Beeler said, “The court denies Pearson Education’s motion to dismiss Dr. Codding’s breach-of-contract claim but grants its motion to dismiss Dr. Codding’s anticipatory-breach claim. The dismissal of the anticipatory-breach claim is with prejudice.”
“As Dr. Codding has not sufficiently pleaded the elements of an anticipatory-breach claim, the court grants Pearson Education’s motion to dismiss this claim," the ruling said. "As Dr. Codding has had three chances, has had the benefit of two prior court orders on this issue, and has nonetheless failed to cognizably plead this claim, the court holds that further amendment would be futile and dismisses this claim with prejudice.”
The judge said that she had dismissed Codding’s original complaint because she did not provide enough factual information to support her allegation that Pearson Education did not adequately promote the sale of the educational courses.
The reason given by the judge for dismissing Codding’s amended complaint was that she grouped defendant Pearson Education with Pearson plc, which was not her employer. She signed on to work for Pearson Education.
In further support of her ruling, Beeler said, “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, which when accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Dr. Codding does not allege that Pearson Education breached an express term of the agreements. Instead, she alleges that Pearson Education breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
Regarding the last element alleging that the defendant’s conduct harmed the plaintiff, the judge said, “Causation of damages in contract cases, as in tort cases, requires that the damages be proximately caused by the defendant’s breach and that their causal occurrence be at least reasonably certain. The test for causation in a breach of contract action is whether the breach was a substantial factor in causing the damages. Mere conclusory statements do not suffice to sufficiently state a breach of contract cause of action.”