NC Business Court: Unjust enrichment claim limited to sole plaintiff and corporate defendant

The court granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment, allowing a single plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim to proceed only against a single corporate defendant while dismissing all other parties from that claim.

The dispute arose from a multi-year business relationship involving environmental and facility-related projects at a former industrial site in North Carolina. The plaintiff performed work on projects obtained by the defendant company with the understanding that he would receive a share of the profits. Payments were funneled through an entity associated with the plaintiff, which functioned as a pass-through. Over time, disagreements developed regarding unpaid compensation, including assurances from the defendants that outstanding amounts would be paid. The relationship ultimately ended without payment, despite acknowledgments that money remained owed.

In an earlier ruling, the court allowed the unjust enrichment claim to survive summary judgment in part, leaving open which parties were properly included. Applying North Carolina law, the court emphasized that unjust enrichment requires a direct benefit conferred by the plaintiff on the defendant, knowingly accepted under circumstances making retention without payment inequitable.

The court held that only the plaintiff who personally performed the work could pursue the claim. The affiliated entity was dismissed because it merely served as a conduit and did not itself confer any benefit. Similarly, an additional individual plaintiff was dismissed. On the defense side, the court concluded that only the corporate defendant directly received the benefit of the plaintiff’s services. Any benefit to individual defendants was deemed indirect and insufficient to support liability.

Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim proceeds to trial solely between the plaintiff and the corporate defendant, with all other claims and parties dismissed with prejudice.

The 12 page opinion is Lucas v. Hopper, Lawyers Weekly No. 020-016-26.