# TOUCHLINE VIDEO, INC. v. THE INTERCOLLEGIATE WOMEN'S LACROSSE COACHES ASSOCIATION

> District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 31, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254221

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 31, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254221

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to form a claim for unjust enrichment where a contractor completed a project, but the lender, with whom the contractor did not have a contract, refused to pay

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

TOUCHLINE VIDEO, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 1:21-CV-858
)
THE INTERCOLLEGIATE WOMEN’S )
LACROSSE COACHES ASSOCIATION, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, Chief District Judge.
This case is before the court on the motion of Defendant The
Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association (“IWLCA”) to
dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Touchline Video (“Touchline”) for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. (Doc. 14.) The motion
is fully briefed. (Docs. 16, 18.) For the reasons set forth
below, IWLCA’s motion to dismiss will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The basic facts alleged by Touchline, taken as true for the
purpose of this motion, are as follows:
Touchline is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of
business in Tennessee. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.) It is the nation’s
“largest video production company specializing in youth sports,”
and records thousands of matches from youth sporting events each
year. (Id. at ¶ 9.) IWLCA is a Maryland corporation and is a
professional association comprised of women’s lacrosse coaches
within the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletes. (Id. at ¶ 18.)
Each year, IWLCA hosts a series of recruiting tournaments for high

school lacrosse teams. (Doc. 1-1 at 2.)
Beginning in 2012, IWLCA and Touchline entered into an
agreement for Touchline to provide certain video recording
services for IWLCA’s tournaments. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10.) In 2018, the
parties extended the original agreement with mutually agreed upon
modifications for an additional five years (the “2018 Agreement”).
(Id. at ¶ 12.) Specifically, Touchline agreed, among other things,
to “provide high quality video recordings of every game played in
each of the Tournaments,” work in a timely and professional manner
“with the online hosting company contracted by IWLCA,” offer some
recordings at a discounted rate to each team participating in one
of IWLCA’s tournaments and who also registered for the “video

choice option,” make the tournaments a ”priority commitment,”
offer preferred discount rates for IWLCA’s tournaments for all of
Touchline’s video packages, and provide a “Highlights Package” to
tournament participants at a rate in Touchline’s discretion. (Id.
at ¶¶ 24a-24e.)
In exchange for those promises, IWLCA agreed, among other
things, to pay Touchline $100 per registered team for Touchline’s
recording services when IWLCA sold its own packages, pay Touchline
$100 for each team that selected the “video choice option,” and
communicate with Touchline in a timely manner. (Id. at ¶¶ 25a-
25c.)
In early 2020, IWLCA’s leadership changed, and tensions

between IWLCA and Touchline began to grow. (Id. at ¶ 13.) IWLCA’s
new leadership began complaining about the terms of the 2018
Agreement and informed Touchline that it was exploring a business
relationship with a recruiting platform company, which would host
IWLCA’s tournament videos. (Id. at ¶ 14.) IWLCA also “proposed
one-sided, unreasonable terms inconsistent with the Parties’
negotiated business agreement.” (Id.) Chief among those
complaints was IWLCA’s allegation that a change in market rates
for video production resulted in Touchline benefitting from an
unfair deal. (Id. at ¶ 36.) IWLCA also complained that it was
not receiving a commission on Touchline’s video sales, which IWLCA
argued had become industry standard. (Id. at ¶ 39.)

IWLCA also introduced a third-party recruiting company,
SportsRecruits, into the parties’ relationship. (Id. at ¶ 42.)
SportsRecruits is a recruiting platform and has its own video
subsidiary, Cross Street Sports. (Id. at ¶ 43.) IWLCA ultimately
asked Touchline to coordinate with SportsRecruits to provide
videos for the 2021 IWLCA tournaments. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Touchline
agreed to operate with SportsRecruits pursuant to the 2018
Agreement but “did not expect or agree that this would be a
permanent modification to the 2018 Contract.” (Id. at ¶ 44.)
In November 2020, IWLCA again contacted Touchline to “confirm
a few of the rights” under the 2018 Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 45.)
IWLCA asserted that, when Touchline sold a “video select option”

recording package to a tournament team, Touchline would receive
$100 and pay IWLCA $200. (Id. at ¶ 46a.) IWLCA also demanded
that if Touchline were to host tournament videos on another site,
it must restrict access to those videos to IWLCA coaches. (Id. at
¶ 46b.) Finally, IWLCA informed Touchline it did not have a
license to provide IWLCA “[t]ournament film to any platform or
company for any additional access beyond IWLCA coaches or for cost
without the IWLCA written permission.” (Id. at ¶ 46c.) This
restriction on where Touchline could post IWLCA film came after
years of Touchline displaying videos on another video hosting
platform, ConnectLAX, with no objection from IWLCA. (Id. at ¶ 48.)
In December 2020, Touchline responded, noting IWLCA’s

concerns and that its goal was to continue their business
relationship. (Id. at ¶ 50.) Touchline also agreed to renegotiate
the 2018 Agreement to ensure that the parties would have a
“positive working relationship into the future.” (Id. at ¶ 51.)
In pursuit of that renegotiation, Touchline provided IWLCA with a
new agreement on December 9, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 52.) That proposed
agreement provided that Touchline would grant IWLCA access to
tournament video recordings and provide a substantial discount to
the players and teams, while maintaining Touchline’s ability to
profit from its work. (Id.) IWLCA rejected the proposed
agreement. (Id. at ¶ 53.) IWLCA proposed its own “addendum” to
the 2018 Agreement, which included a 72-hour video upload

requirement as well as a provision precluding Touchline from using
a third-party platform like ConnectLAX to sell certain IWLCA
tournament videos. (Id. at ¶ 54.) Touchline proposed
modifications to this addendum, but IWLCA seemingly had no interest
in negotiations. (Id. at ¶ 55.)
The relationship between the parties continued to deteriorate
when, on April 5, 2021, IWLCA sent a cease and desist letter to
ConnectLAX, Touchline’s third-party video sales vendor, alleging
trademark infringement stemming from its use of IWLCA trademarks
posted by Touchline on the ConnectLAX platform. (Id. at ¶ 58.)
IWLCA also reiterated its demand for a “market standard” 3-to-5-
day video upload requirement. (Id. at ¶ 62.) Despite IWLCA’s

demands and its cease and desist letter to ConnectLAX, Touchline
continued to assist SportsRecruits with tournament video recording
transfers. (Id. at ¶ 63.) Touchline also made itself available
to the SportsRecruits team to address any questions or issues the
team might have. (Id. at ¶ 64.) Touchline received no additional
compensation for its time and effort supporting SportsRecruits.
(Id. at ¶ 65.)
In September 2021, IWLCA terminated the 2018 Agreement, in
part, because of Touchline’s failure to timely deliver tournament
recordings within the 72-hour timeframe proposed in IWLCA’s 2020
addendum. (Id. at ¶ 68.) According to Touchline, this termination
was the culmination of IWLCA’s scheme to escape its obligations

under the 2018 Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Touchline contends that
IWLCA forced it to make SportsRecruits a viable platform to take
Touchline’s business and, according to Touchline, wrongfully
terminated the 2018 Agreement based on illegitimate grounds. (Id.)
As a result, Touchline filed the present lawsuit, alleging one
claim for breach of contract stemming from IWLCA’s 2021 termination
of the 2018 Agreement and one claim for unjust enrichment based on
Touchline’s uncompensated assistance with the SportsRecruits
platform.
II. ANALYSIS
This court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 4.) The court exercises personal jurisdiction

over IWLCA, which has substantial contacts in this district,
including by maintaining a place of business in the district and
purposefully availing itself of the benefits and protections of
the laws of North Carolina by being registered to conduct business
in North Carolina pursuant to a Certificate of Authority for
Nonprofit Corporation. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 5.) Venue is proper pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Further, the parties consented to
jurisdiction and venue in this court in the 2018 Agreement. (Doc.
1 at ¶ 8.). The parties also agreed the 2018 Agreement would be
governed by North Carolina law. (Doc. 1-1 at 5.)
A. Standard of Review

IWLCA moves to dismiss Touchline’s complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Touchline
has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(Doc. 14.) A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is meant
to “test[] the sufficiency of a complaint” and not to “resolve
contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin,
980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). To survive such a motion, “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)). In considering the

motion, a court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations
contained in the complaint,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam), and all reasonable inferences must be drawn
in the plaintiff’s favor, Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472,
474 (4th Cir. 1997). “Rule 12(b)(6) protects against meritless
litigation by requiring sufficient factual allegations ‘to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level’ so as to ‘nudge[]
the[] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.’”
Sauers v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth Cty. Bd. of Educ., 179 F. Supp. 3d
544, 550 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Mere legal conclusions are not accepted
as true, and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the
court “generally cannot reach the merits of an affirmative
defense.” Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir.
2007).
B. Breach of Contract
Touchline’s first cause of action alleges breach of the 2018
Agreement. To succeed on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff
must show “(1) existence of a valid contract, and (2) breach of
the terms of that contract.” Sanders v. State Pers. Comm’n, 677
S.E.2d 182, 187 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Toomer v. Garrett,
574 S.E.2d 76, 91 (N.C. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In interpreting contracts, North Carolina courts employ the
following rules of construction:
[T]he goal of construction is to arrive at the intent
of the parties when the [contract] was issued. Where
a [contract] defines a term, that definition is to
be used. If no definition is given, non-technical
words are to be given their meaning in ordinary
speech, unless the context clearly indicates another
meaning was intended. The various terms of the
[contract] are to be harmoniously construed, and if
possible, every word and every provision is to be
given effect.

Singleton v. Haywood Elec. Membership Corp., 588 S.E.2d 871, 875
(N.C. 2003) (quoting Gaston Cnty. Dyeing Mach. Co. v. Northfield
Ins. Co., 524 S.E.2d 558, 563 (N.C. 2000)). “Whether a failure to
perform a contractual obligation is so material as to discharge

other parties to the contract from further performance of their
obligations thereunder is a question of fact which must be
determined by the jury or . . . by the trial court without a jury.”
Combined Ins. Co. of Am. v. McDonald, 243 S.E.2d 817, 820 (N.C.
Ct. App. 1978). Further, “if one party to the contract renounces
it, the other may treat renunciation as a breach and sue for . .
. damages at once, provided the renunciation covers the entire
performance to which the contract binds the promisor.” Cook v.
Lawson, 164 S.E.2d 29, 32 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968) (citing Pappas v.
Crist, 25 S.E.2d 850, 852 (N.C. 1943)). This, too, is a question
of fact to be determined by the jury. Id.
IWLCA argues that the complaint fails to state a breach of

contract claim because Touchline’s ongoing prior breach authorized
IWLCA’s rescission of the 2018 Agreement. (Doc. 15 at 7.) IWLCA
points to Touchline’s “unauthorized sale” of IWLCA’s tournament
videos in the summer of 2021. (Id. at 8.) Specifically, the 2018
Agreement provided that Touchline would offer a collection of
recordings for $300 to each team participating in a tournament
that had registered for the “video choice option” package. (Doc.
1-1 at 3.) For teams that did not select the “video choice option”
package, Touchline agreed to offer a collection of individual game
recordings at Touchline’s prevailing rate. (Id.) Importantly,
however, the 2018 Agreement makes clear that if Touchline desired
to “offer any other video recording or package of any game or

compilation of games from any of the Tournaments at any other rate,
the IWLCA must approve in writing beforehand.” (Id.) IWLCA
alleges that, beyond the “video choice option” package and the
collection of individual game recordings, Touchline started
selling a “Season Pass For All My Teams” package at a rate of
$1,000 to $5,000 depending on the number of teams. (Doc. 15 at
8.) IWLCA, however, did not provide the written consent required
by the 2018 Agreement. (Id.) In support of this argument, IWLCA
directs the court to its September 2021 termination letter sent to
Touchline, Touchline’s response, and IWLCA’s reply. (Docs. 15-2;
15-3; 15-4.)
Although IWLCA’s briefing identifies serious hurdles

Touchline will have to overcome at a later stage in these
proceedings, evidence in support of IWLCA’s response is outside
the purview of the court at the motion to dismiss stage. In
evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court may consider documents
attached to the complaint “as well as those attached to the motion
to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and
authentic.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180
(4th Cir. 2009). A document is not integral to a complaint, even
if the complaint includes a few quotes from and references to the
document, if the claims “do not turn on, nor are they otherwise
based on, statements contained” in the document. Goines v. Valley
Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016). If a court

goes beyond documents attached or integral to the complaint, “it
converts the motion into one for summary judgment. Such conversion
is not appropriate where the parties have not had an opportunity
for reasonable discovery.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Kolon
Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal citations
omitted).
Here, the document in question is a letter from Touchline’s
former counsel to IWLCA’s counsel after IWLCA informed Touchline
it was terminating the 2018 Agreement. (Doc. 15-3.) Touchline
did not attach the letter to its complaint, and the complaint makes
no reference to the document, does not quote from the document,
and does not rely upon it. While the document may prove integral

to the case at a later stage, it is not integral to the complaint
at this motion to dismiss stage. As such, it is outside the
purview of the court at this time. See Allen v. Atlas Boxing and
Crating, No. 5:18-CV-520-FL, 2019 WL 6481342, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Dec.
2, 2019) (collecting cases and declining to consider documents
attached to the motion to dismiss as they were not integral to and
explicitly relied on in the complaint); Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics
Intern., Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2015) (refusing to
take judicial notice of SEC filings and consider them in
determining a motion to dismiss because the documents “were not
explicitly referenced in, or an integral part of, the plaintiffs’
complaint.”).

Furthermore, Touchline has sufficiently pleaded a claim for
breach of contract. According to the complaint and taking all the
reasonable allegations therein as true, IWLCA and Touchline
entered into the 2018 Agreement and extended it because of amicable
relations between the parties for years. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 23.) This
changed, however, when IWLCA allegedly began making unilateral
modifications to the 2018 Agreement, including a 72-hour video
upload requirement, demanding different rates because the market
rate for video production had changed, and demanding a commission
for each video sold by Touchline. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-36, 38-40.) IWLCA
allegedly rebuked Touchline’s offer to renegotiate the 2018
Agreement (id. at ¶ 52) and unilaterally terminated the 2018

Agreement (id. at ¶¶ 66-70). A unilateral repudiation of the
contract could constitute breach of the 2018 Agreement. See Cook
v. Lawson, 164 S.E.2d 29, 32 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968) (citing Pappas
v. Crist, 25 S.E.2d 850, 852 (N.C. 1943)) (“if one party to the
contract renounces it, the other may treat renunciation as a breach
and sue for . . . damages at once, provided the renunciation covers
the entire performance to which the contract binds the promisor.”).
As such, IWLCA’s motion to dismiss as to Touchline’s breach of
contract claim will be denied.
C. Unjust Enrichment
IWLCA moves to dismiss Touchline’s unjust enrichment claim on
the grounds that the substance alleged is governed by an express

contract claim. (Doc. 15 at 11.) The elements of an unjust
enrichment claim under North Carolina law are: “(1) plaintiff
conferred a measurable benefit to defendant, (2) defendant
knowingly and voluntarily accepted the benefit, and (3) the benefit
was not given gratuitously.” TSC Rsch. LLC v. Bayer Chems. Corp.,
552 F. Supp. 2d 534, 540 (M.D.N.C. 2008). “[M]ore must be shown
than that one party voluntarily benefited another or his property.”
JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Browning, 750 S.E.2d 555, 560
(N.C. Ct. App. 2013). The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies
in “circumstances where it would be unfair for the recipient to
retain [benefits] without the contributor being repaid or
compensated.” Homeq v. Watkins, 572 S.E.2d 871, 873 (N.C. Ct.

App. 2002) (quoting Collins v. Davis, 315 S.E.2d 759, 761 (N.C.
Ct. App. 1984)). “In order to properly set out a claim for unjust
enrichment, a plaintiff must allege that property or benefits were
conferred on a defendant under circumstances which give rise to a
legal or equitable obligation on the part of the defendant to
account for the benefits received.” Id. (quoting Norman v. Nash
Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc., 537 S.E.2d 248, 266 (N.C. Ct. App.
2000)). A successful unjust enrichment claim must show that, at
the time a payment was made, both parties understood that the
payment was made with an expectation of some service or benefit.
Volumetrics Med. Imaging, Inc. v. ATL Ultrasound, Inc., 243 F.
Supp. 2d 386, 412 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (citing Scott v. United Carolina

Bank, 503 S.E.2d 149, 152 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998)). Further, no
unjust enrichment occurs when the benefit is given without
solicitation or inducement. See Homeq, 572 S.E.2d at 873. A claim
for unjust enrichment cannot survive where an express contract
governs a party’s claim. Booe v. Shadrick, 369 S.E.2d 554, 570
(N.C. 1988).
Touchline bases its unjust enrichment claim on its
interactions with SportsRecruits. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 80.)
SportsRecruits is a recruiting platform and has its own video
subsidiary, Cross Street Sports. (Id. at ¶ 43.) IWLCA allegedly
asked Touchline to coordinate with SportsRecruits to provide video
via SportsRecruits for the 2021 IWLCA tournaments. (Id. at ¶ 42.)

Touchline “was contractually obligated to coordinate with
SportsRecruits” pursuant to the 2018 Agreement; however, Touchline
alleges it “did not expect or agree that this would be a permanent
modification” to the 2018 Agreement without other consideration
and changes. (Id. at ¶ 44.) Between April and June 2021, Touchline
assisted SportsRecruits in uploading video recordings and made
itself available to answer questions from the SportsRecruits team.
(Id. at ¶ 64.) Touchline received no compensation for the time
spent working with SportsRecruits. (Id. at ¶ 65.)
As Touchline notes, an unjust enrichment claim cannot survive
“where an express contract governs the scope of the specific
benefits unjustly conferred.” (Doc. 16 at 16.) The 2018 Agreement

required Touchline to “work in a timely and professional [manner]
with the online hosting company contracted by the IWLCA for
expeditious uploading of Tournament recordings.” (Doc. 1-1 at 3.)
The online hosting company selected by IWLCA was SportsRecruits.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 42.) Touchline admits in its complaint that it “was
contractually obligated to coordinate with SportsRecruits.” (Id.
at ¶ 44.) While Touchline might be unhappy with the amount of
coordination required to work with SportsRecruits, it nevertheless
agreed to do so in the 2018 Agreement.
However, Touchline’s claim is narrowly saved from dismissal,
because Touchline alleges it provided extra-contractual benefits,
such as transferring videos instead of merely uploading them and

providing consulting support to SportsRecruits “at the request of
IWLCA.” (Id. at ¶ 63.) While the 2018 Agreement covered
Touchline’s work with SportsRecruits, it did so only for the
benefit of “expeditious uploading of Tournament recordings.”
(Doc. 1-1 at 3.) A claim for unjust enrichment for any benefit
beyond that required by the 2018 Agreement would not be preempted
by the presence the contract. At the very least, it is a question
of material fact as to whether the benefits Touchline conferred to
SportsRecruits were extra-contractual. As such, resolution of
this claim at this time would be improper.
IWLCA presents a similar argument that the claim must be

dismissed because there is no evidence that both parties understood
that the benefit was given with an expectation of some service or
payment in return. (Doc. 18 at 9.) However, Touchline’s complaint
alleges that it conducted this additional consulting and
transferring work at IWLCA’s request (Doc. 1 at ¶ 63) and did so
with the expectation that it would be compensated for them (id. at
¶ 82). Whether Touchline can prove that IWLCA also understood
that Touchline would be compensated for its service remains to be
seen. But Touchline has alleged that IWLCA ordered Touchline to
engage in extra-contractual work and that Touchline expected to be
paid for it. Accepting Touchline’s allegations as true, the claim
survives.

IWLCA’s final argument is that the claim should be dismissed
because any benefit conferred was to SportsRecruits and not IWLCA.
This is similarly unpersuasive. A claim for unjust enrichment
does not require the conveyance of a direct benefit. See New
Prime, Inc. v. Harris Transp. Co., No. COA12-271, 729 S.E.2d 732,
2012 WL 3192718, at *4 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (“Our holding in the
instant case is in line with the Restatement and other states.
Many jurisdictions do not require that the plaintiff confer a
direct benefit on the defendant in order to recover under a theory
of unjust enrichment.”) (unpublished); Metric Constructors, Inc.
v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., 72 F. App’x 916, 921 (4th Cir.
2003) (finding plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence that it

conferred a benefit to the defendant, even where the benefit was
conferred to a third party and not directly to the defendant,
because “[u]nder North Carolina law, it is sufficient for a
plaintiff to prove that it has conferred some benefit on the
defendant, without regard to the directness of the transaction.”);
see also, Embree Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc., 411 S.E.2d
916, 923 (N.C. 1992) (holding plaintiff’s allegations were
sufficient to form a claim for unjust enrichment where a contractor
completed a project, but the lender, with whom the contractor did
not have a contract, refused to pay). Touchline alleges it made
SportsRecruits “a viable platform” through its consulting work.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 80.) Certainly, this was a benefit to SportsRecruits.

However, it also benefited IWLCA, as SportsRecruits was the company
IWLCA selected to host all of its videos. To the extent
Touchline’s consulting work improved SportsRecruits’s ability to
provide its service to IWLCA, IWLCA received a benefit from
Touchline’s alleged extra-contractual work. As such, Touchline’s
unjust enrichment claim survives.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IWLCA’s motion to dismiss is
DENIED.

/s/ Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge

May 31, 2022

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254221. Public record. Not legal advice.