UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
October 15, 2010
KINGS CHOICE NECKWEAR, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
PITNEY BOWES, INC., PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORPORATION, AND PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.L.C., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denise Cote, Judge).
Kings Choice Neckwear, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., et. al.
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of October, two thousand and ten.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge. JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Kings Choice Neckwear ("plaintiff") appeals from a December 23, 2009 memorandum and order dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) its class action suit against defendants-appellees Pitney Bowes , Inc., Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation, and Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services, L.L.C. (jointly, "defendants"). Plaintiff claims that the "equipment return fee" included in contracts between defendants and the putative class resulted in a breach of contract; a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a-110q. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), assuming all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint to be true. See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S.___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2009).
On the merits, we agree with the District Court's reasoning and its conclusion that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim.*fn1 We affirm the judgment of the District Court disposing of all claims.
The judgment of the District Court as to all claims is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT,
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court