Unimax Urges Denial of T-Mobile’s Motion to Dismiss Over Unpaid-for Phones

Plaintiff Unimax Communications asks that the U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle deny T-Mobile’s Jan. 22 motion to dismiss its breach of contract lawsuit against the carrier (see 2401240026), said Unimax’s response to the motion Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01830).

Unimax alleges that T-Mobile breached its contractual obligations by failing to accept delivery of nearly half a million devices it sourced from the mobile phone maker (see 2311290029). T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss said its contract for the purchase of mobile phones from Unimax authorized it to cancel purchase orders before accepting delivery and that it could do so “without incurring any liability.”

But Unimax “has sufficiently pled claims” for breach of contract, intentional interference with a prospective business expectancy and for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, said Unimax’s response. The contractual provision that T-Mobile relies on to escape its contractual obligation under Rule 12(b)(6) and that was attached and filed with Unimax’s complaint isn’t the signed addendum, it said.

Even if a signed version were filed with Unimax’s complaint, by its “express language,” it allowed for only contractual modification of any purchase and cancelation of the delivery date, not for cancellation of purchase orders, said Unimax’s response. To the extent it does allow unfettered cancellation of purchase orders, Unimax has properly filed a petition for declaratory judgment to ascertain whether such contractual terms are “illusory and unconscionable,” it said.

There are multiple factual and legal grounds for denying T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss, said Unimax’s response. The standard by which a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is well established, it said. A complaint must not be dismissed unless it’s shown that the plaintiff “can prove no set of facts in support of the claim, which would entitle him to relief,” it said.

In determining a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's allegations must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” said Unimax’s response. The issue isn’t whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, but rather whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims, it said.

Unimax alleges and T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss acknowledges that the contractual terms contained in the contract between the parties are “illusory,” said Unimax’s response. T-Mobile’s “unilateral decision” to not compensate Unimax for the manufacturing of phones “deprived the contract of adequate consideration for work performed and representations made,” it said.

T-Mobile doesn’t dispute that there was a contract between the parties for the phones, said Unimax’s response. It also doesn’t dispute that it didn’t pay Unimax for the purchase orders that it made, it said.

What T-Mobile appears to be arguing is that while it acknowledges there’s a contract between the parties, neither its acts following the purchase orders nor its failure to pay Unimax “creates a viable legal claim that Unimax sufficiently pled,” said Unimax’s response. As evidenced in Unimax’s complaint, Unimax “alleges very detailed and specified facts” in support of its legal claims and the relief sought, it said. If the court properly accepts these “averments” as true, the grounds for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim can’t be granted, it said.