Some time ago, as part of a discussion about equitable rescission based on fraud, we noted that recovery based on a fraud claim where damages were not specifically alleged and sufficiently supported was the subject of a split between the First and Second Departments. The Second Department had held that even if just nominal damages are generally alleged, the complaint would survive dismissal. The First Department disagreed and held that a claim of specific damages was required. Recently, the Court of Appeals addressed the split and sided with the First Department.
In Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Connaughton, a chef hired by Chipotle, alleged that he was fraudulently induced into selling his business idea to Chipotle. Specifically, Connaughton claimed that he was hired by Chipotle to develop an idea for a ramen noodle restaurant chain. He was promised a salary plus future equity. After investing substantial efforts over 18 months in publicly building the concept, Connaughton learned that Chipotle had a relationship with another chef who previously worked on the same concept and with whom Chipotle had signed a non-disclosure agreement. The relationship with the other chef had terminated before Connaughton joined Chipotle. It seemed that all of management except Connaughton were aware of this and that once the new chain opened, that chef would sue Connaughton and Chipotle. Chipotle ignored Connaughton’s concerns and demanded that he continue his work. When he refused he was fired.
Connaughton’s theory for recovery, as succinctly explained by the Court of Appeals, is critical to the case’s outcome in the First Department and in the Court of Appeals. Connaughton alleged that:
by virtue of his reasonable reliance on [Chipotle’s] omissions about the business arrangement with the other chef, defendants fraudulently induced him to work for Chipotle and to share his restaurant concept to his detriment. He alleged that he would not have entered into the agreement with defendants had he known about the prior business arrangement. He further asserted that the ideas the Chipotle staff contributed to plaintiff’s design for the restaurant concept actually belonged to the other chef and that using those ideas to launch plaintiff’s project would subject plaintiff to legal action. Plaintiff claimed he was ‘damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to, the value of his Chipotle equity and lost business opportunities in connection with his ramen concept.’ He further requested compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys fees and disbursements.
The First Department rejected Connaughton’s claims. The First Department found that because Connaughton could not allege actual losses, he could not support his fraudulent inducement claim or his lawsuit. Future damages were insufficient to support a fraud claim. In the court’s words “‘damages are calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for what they might have gained in the absence of fraud.’” The majority rejected the dissent’s position that a fraud claim could be pursued so long as a future injury could be reasonably argued. The majority also pointed out that Connaughton was not accused of stealing another’s idea and his reputation “has not been tarnished.” Concerns of a future lawsuit which would publicize the matter and lost profits if the chain had come to fruition were speculative and Connaughton could recover for neither.
Finally, the First Department refused to allow Connaughton to salvage his case by arguing nominal damages, which the Second Department had allowed, limiting that theory to a contract-based claim, where a right had already vested, but not one grounded in tort, where no such vesting had taken place.
Connaughton took his case to the Court of Appeals, but he found no assistance there. In affirming unanimously, the court pretty much adopted the findings of the First Department, that Connaughton “failed to plead compensable damages.” The Court of Appeals did note that the outcome might have been different had Connaughton claimed that he “rejected” other opportunities for the chain by working with Chipotle. The claim, therefore, was based on unrecoverable “out-of-pocket loss” and “disallowed as too speculative a recovery.” The same was true of Connaughton’s concern of potential future lawsuits. As to nominal damages, the court limited that theory to contract claims or tort claims that did not require an allegation of harm (such as trespass).
Pleading fraud has a statutorily higher standard than alleging other wrongs, but this case illustrates that tact and strategy are at least as important as satisfying the pleading standard. There was no argument addressed to the sufficiency of the pleadings generally. It was supporting the claim that Connaughton could not satisfy. One cannot be too careful in pleading—and supporting—fraud allegations.