About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0062 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment D.D.C.2015. Com. (b) quot. in case quot. in sup. Virginia lobbyist brought claims sounding in unjust enrichment, breach of implied-in-fact contract, and quantum meruit against Virginia law firm and Maryland attorney who represented minority farmers in an underlying class action against the federal government, alleging that defendants refused to pay him for lobbying the federal government in support of legislative funding to settle the class action. After defendants removed the action, this court granted plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that attorney was not fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction, because plaintiff stated a cause of action against attorney for unjust enrichment under District of Columbia law. The court reasoned that, regardless of whether plaintiff's lobbying efforts were crucial to the ultimate enactment of the appropriations bill providing settlement funds, plaintiff's efforts conferred a tangible benefit on attorney under Restatement of Restitution § 1, which provided that a person conferred a benefit if he or she performed services beneficial to or at the request of the other. Boyd v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, 79 F.Supp.3d 153, 158. S.D.Fla.2015. Cit. in sup.; com. (a) cit. in sup. Bank customers brought a multidistrict action against bank, alleging that defendant wrongfully extracted overdraft fees. This court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding, inter alia, that plaintiffs adequately alleged claims for unjust enrichment and breach of the contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court determined that it was appropriate to create subclasses and explained that the fact that plaintiffs brought both contractual and equitable claims did not affect the manageability of the class action, because each subclass was based on the principles found in Restatement of Restitution § 1. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 307 F.R.D. 630, 653. D.N.J.2014. Cit. in case quot. in sup. Consumer filed, inter alia, an unjust-enrichment claim against manufacturer of an over-the-counter pain reliever, alleging that defendant engaged in unconscionable commercial practice by selling two pain relievers with identical ingredients in identical qualities with the one marketed for migraine relief sold at a higher price. This court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Citing Restatement of Restitution § 1, the court determined that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was unjustly enriched, and reasoned that, despite the fact that plaintiff could have purchased the same product at a lower price, she chose to purchase the higher-priced pain reliever and received exactly what she paid for. Yingst v. Novartis AG, 63 F.Supp.3d 412, 417. _A l m For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most