COMPLAINT

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the Complaint.

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, [Redacted], by and through his attorney, Patrick A. Maizy, and for her Complaint states as follows:

PARTIES

Plaintiff [Redacted], hereinafter "Plaintiff," is a Michigan limited liability company with a principal place of business at [Redacted] of the County of Wayne and State of Michigan.
Upon information and belief, Defendant [Redacted] is an individual who resides at [Redacted].
Upon information and belief, Defendant [Redacted] is an individual who resides at [Redacted].
Upon information and belief, Defendant [Redacted] is an individual who resides at [Redacted].
Defendant [Redacted] and Plaintiff have a prior business relationship whereby Plaintiff previously provided landscaping services to Defendant [Redacted] and this Defendant arranged for Plaintiff to provide services at the subject-property.
Upon information and belief, Defendant [Redacted] is the sister of Defendant [Redacted] and sister-in-law of Defendant [Redacted].
At all relevant times Defendant [Redacted] acted as an agent of Defendants [Redacted] and [Redacted].
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations as though fully set forth herein.
Venue is proper because all parties reside within the County of Wayne and the State of Michigan.
The amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys' fees exceeds the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000)
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations as though fully set forth herein.
On or about July 24, 2022 Defendant [Redacted] contacted Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendants via text message to hire Plaintiff to perform landscaping services at the Home of Defendants.
Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendants on or about August 15, 2022, with the Defendants and Defendants' Agent to perform certain landscaping services.
Plaintiff quoted Defendants for the landscaping services for the following:
Grass $2, 980.
Black Rocks $1,500
Walls at Garden $2,500
Clean Up $2,000
Fence $500
Back Patio (baxbox) $1,000
Flowers-Plants $800
Plaintiff also quoted Defendants for the landscaping services for the following:
Baxbox $ 1,000
Back Garden $3,500
Hydrangea $250
Tool House $300
On or about August 15, 2022 Defendant [Redacted] paid a "first payment" to Plaintiff via an American Express credit card $5,000 through the Square Secure application on behalf of Defendants.
On or about August 15, 2022, Plaintiff commenced services at the home of Defendants' located at [Redacted], in the County of Wayne, State of Michigan (the "Home").
The legal description of the home is: Lot 140, Belmont Subdivision No. 1, Recorded in Liber 51, Page 90, of Plats, Wayne County Records. Commonly known as: [Redacted]. Tax Parcel :# 33-022-02-0140-000.
Plaintiff performed all contracted landscaping services in a good and workmanlike manner.
During the course of Plaintiff's performance, Defendant [Redacted], who was present at the Home, indicated that his brother-in-law [Redacted] will be paying for the services.
During the course of Plaintiff's performance, Defendant [Redacted] requested additional work be performed.
Plaintiff agreed and accepted Defendant [Redacted]'s offer and sent a new invoice totaling $16,000 to Defendants [Redacted] and [Redacted].
Plaintiff completed landscaping services to Defendants' satisfaction on or about August 23, 2022.
An invoice for a remaining balance in addition to the initial "first payment" deposit was sent to Defendants.
On or about August 26, 2022 Defendant [Redacted] paid Plaintiff via an American Express credit card $11,726.55 through the Square Secure application.
On or about September 1, 2022 Plaintiff received notice from the Square Secure application that "a cardholder has disputed a payment you processed on August 29, 2022. They've filed a claim with their bank, and the bank reached out to us for more information.
The dispute reason given stated: "No knowledge of charge."
Upon information and belief, Defendants disputed the $11,726.55 charge on the basis that they did not authorize the charge.
Upon information and belief Defendants knowingly disputed a valid payment after receipt of services.
Upon information and belief Defendant [Redacted] knowingly disputed a valid payment after receipt of services.
On or about September 1, 2022, promptly after receiving notice of Defendants' fraudulent chargeback dispute, Plaintiff submitted photographic evidence of the work performed at the Home.
Plaintiff contacted Defendant [Redacted] on numerous occasions on or about September 1, 2022, via telephone to resolve the dispute but was ignored by the Defendant each time.
On or about September 2, 2022 Plaintiff contacted Defendant [Redacted] via text message to request that she forward to Defendant [Redacted] the information sent to Plaintiff from Square.
On or about September 2, 2022, Square submitted a challenge response to the Defendants/cardholder's bank.
On or about November 15, 2022 Square notified Plaintiff that the payment dispute was challenged using the information provided by Plaintiff, and the cardholder's bank reviewed same and resolved the dispute in favor of the cardholder.
The cardholder's bank did not give rights ot re-challenge a cardholder's dispute after a final decision was made.
Plaintiff was advised to consult with a lawyer to initiate a legal process with the cardholder.
COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT
(As to Defendants [Redacted] and [Redacted])
The Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding allegations as though fully set forth herein.
On or about August 15, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an agreement for Plaintiff to provide certain landscaping services.
Plaintiff performed and completed the landscaping services in a workmanlike manner.
Through Defendants' act of disputing the credit card charge despite Plaintiff's performance, Defendants have breached.
As a result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment for damages in favor in an amount greater than $25,000.00, plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs, interest, and attorney fees, as made and provided in Michigan law.
COUNT II BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (As to all Defendants)
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this pleading as if set forth at length herein.
Every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, whereby neither party shall do anything that will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.
Defendants owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiff by reason of their undertaken obligations to pay Plaintiff for landscaping services.
Defendants, by unlawfully withholding payment properly due and owing to Plaintiff and otherwise denying Plaintiff their rightful benefits, as well as their ability to mitigate damages, has acted ni bad faith and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment for damages in favor in an amount greater than $25,000.00, plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs, interest, and attorney fees, as made and provided in Michigan law.
COUNT III QUANTUM MERUIT
(As to Defendant [Redacted])
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this pleading as fi set forth at length herein.
Defendants entered into a contract with Plaintiff, whereby they received the value of Plaintiff's landscaping services.
Despite receiving the value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of the full amount due and owing to Plaintiff in exchange for landscaping goods and services provided to Defendants.
To the extent any amount of the services performed by Plaintiff for Defendants is not governed by a contract, Plaintiff is entitled to damages based upon the quantum meruit value bestowed upon Defendants.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' failure to pay the full value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment for damages in favor in an amount greater than $25,000.00, plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs, interest, and attorney fees, as made and provided in Michigan law.
COUNT IV UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(As to Defendant [Redacted])
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this pleading as fi set forth at length herein.
Defendants entered into a contract with Plaintiff, whereby they received the value of Plaintiff's landscaping services.
Despite receiving the value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of the full amount due and owing to Plaintiff in exchange for landscaping goods and services provided to Defendants.
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants have received a benefit without payment of reasonable compensation to Plaintiff, and allowing Defendants to retain this benefit would only serve to unjustly enrich Defendants.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' failure to pay the full value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment for damages in favor in an amount greater than $25,000.00, plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs, interest, and attorney fees, as made and provided in Michigan law.
COUNT V CONVERSION
(As to Defendant [Redacted])
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this pleading as fi set forth at length herein.
Defendants willfully or negligently deprived Plaintiff of an amount Plaintiff was contractually entitled to in exchange for landscaping goods and services provided to Defendants.
Despite receiving the value of Plaintiff's landscaping goods and services, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of the full amount due and owing to Plaintiff in exchange for landscaping goods and services provided to Defendants.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have unlawfully converted the materials Plaintiff provided to Defendant to Defendants' ownership and dominion.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' failure to pay the full value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment for damages in favor in an amount greater than $25,000.00, plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs, interest, and attorney fees, as made and provided in Michigan law.
COUNT VI CIVIL CONSPIRACY (As to all Defendants)
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this pleading as fi set forth at length herein.
Defendants, individually, jointly, and severally acted in concert with others to cause Plaintiff to be paid less than the amount agreed to, due and owing to Plaintiff.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' failure to pay the full value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment for damages in favor in an amount greater than $25,000.00, plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs, interest, and attorney fees, as made and provided in Michigan law.

COUNT VII TORTIOUS BUSINESS INTERFERENCE (As to all Defendants)

66. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this pleading as fi set forth at length herein.

67. Defendants' actions and inactions tortuously interfered with Plaintiff's economic advantage and interest.

68. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' failure to pay the full value of Plaintiff's landscaping services, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court take any and all actions it deems necessary and just.