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/retrdrue1191 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment C.A.D.C.2015. Com. (a) cit. in sup. Airplane mechanic who succeeded in challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to suspend his license based on alleged regulatory violations filed a petition for review of the National Transportation Safety Board's decision to deny his application for legal fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Vacating and remanding, this court held that it was arbitrary and capricious for the board to reject plaintiff's application for attorney's fees based on its conclusion that plaintiff did not incur legal fees within the meaning of the Act. Citing Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1, Comment a, the court explained that the board was required to examine Alabama law, which implied a promise to pay compensation for services rendered to another that were knowingly accepted, and concluded that, absent a written contract, plaintiff had a quantum meruit obligation to pay the attorney's fees he incurred. Roberts v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 776 F.3d 918, 922. N.D.Cal.2015. Quot. in sup. In consolidated class actions, indirect purchasers of instant-noodle-soup products sued Korean manufacturers and American distributors of the products, alleging that defendants conspired to fix the prices of manufacturer's products sold in the United States. This court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that, while the relationship between defendants' increased revenues and the increased prices paid by plaintiffs was too attenuated to state claims for unjust enrichment under the laws of Michigan or New York, it was not too attenuated to state a claim for unjust enrichment under Massachusetts law. The court noted that, under Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1, the doctrine of unjust enrichment broadly provided that a person who was unjustly enriched at the expense of another was subject to liability in restitution, but that the availability and elements of a claim for unjust enrichment were governed by state law. Fenerjian v. Nongshim Company, Ltd., 72 F.Supp.3d 1058, 1085. N.D.Cal.2014. Quot. in ftn., Rptr's Note (e) quot. in ftn. Consumer brought a putative class action against canned-tuna company, alleging, inter alia, that defendant violated California statutory law by underfilling its tuna cans and that it was required to pay restitution under California common law because it was unjustly enriched by retaining revenues for the underfilled cans. Granting defendant's motion to dismiss the restitution claim, this court held that the claim was duplicative of plaintiff's statutory claims and therefore was superfluous. In the course of its discussion, the court quoted Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1, in noting that, under California law, a claim for unjust enrichment was considered to be a restitution claim. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 30 F.Supp.3d 917, 933. 'A L 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