Cluster 2562413
green
· 79 citation events
across 17 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
BERLEKAMP FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC v. PIPICH (2024)
Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
“The claim of unjust enrichment simply requires that plaintiff ‘confer’ benefits on a defendant; it does not require that plaintiff ‘directly confer’ those benefits.”
green
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (2024)
ECF No. 367 at 48 (citing Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp, 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 412 (E.D Pa. 2006)).
green
Fruth, Inc. v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (2024)
Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 418 (E.D.
green
<font color=\red\">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> - TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-21607" (2023)
Ud. (quoting Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
green
ALBEE v. ALBEE (2022)
Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 414-15 (E.D.
discussing that this relationship exists when someone is in a position "of advisor or counselor as reasonably to inspire confidence that he will act in good faith for the other's interest"
green
Walton v. Grammer Industries, Incorporated (2021)
Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
green
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY v. CUTLER (2021)
Pa. 2010)) (emphasis in original). 32 Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 7, 2009) (quoting Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
green
<font color=\red\">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> - TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-21607" (2021)
Plaintiffs, however, submit that Pennsylvania courts “have rejected the requirement that a plaintiff directly confer a benefit on a defendant in order to allege unjust enrichment.” See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
green
KIMMEL v. ELDERTON STATE BANK (2021)
Pa. Sep. 30, 2010) (“To state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1679 , a plaintiff must first allege facts sufficient to show that the defendant can be deemed a ‘credit repair organization’ for the purposes of the statute.”); and Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 403 (2006) (discerning whether defendants were credit repair organizations after they argued that they did not fall within the statutory definition of the same); with Poskin v. TD Banknorth, N_A.…
discerning whether defendants were credit repair organizations after they argued that they did not fall within the statutory definition of the same
green
BASEMENT SOLUTIONS LLC v. WELLS FARGO BANK (2021)
No. 2 at 4-6. 38 Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 414 (E.D.
citing Harold v. McGann, 406 F. Supp. 2d 562, 571 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
green
M3 USA CORPORATION v. HART (2021)
Pa. July 31, 2019) (citing Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 420 (E.D.
green
FLINT DILLE v. GEER (2020)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp.2d 392, 415 (E.D.
To state a claim of breach of fiduciary duty under Pennsylvanialaw, a plaintiff must first “establish that a fiduciary or confidential relationshipexisted between [the plaintiff] and the defendants,” Baker v. Family Credit CounselingCorp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 414-15 (E.D.
green
DESIMONE v. U.S. CLAIMS SERVICES INC. (2020)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 413 (E.D.
green
DESIMONE v. U.S. CLAIMS SERVICES INC. (2020)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 413 (E.D.
green
U.S. CLAIM SERVICES, INC. v. DESIMONE (2020)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 413 (E.D.
green
Mifflinburg Telegraph, Inc. v. Criswell (2017)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414-15 (E.D.
DuBois, J.
green
In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation (2017)
That statute “makes it unlawful for individuals or businesses to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 411 (E.D.
green
Conquest v. WMC Mortgage Corp. (2017)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414-16 (E.D.
green
Carter P. v. Pook & Pook, LLC. (2016)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414 (E.D.Pa.2006) (citing Harold v. McGann, 406 F.Supp.2d 562, 571 (E.D.Pa.2005)).
green
Incubadora Mexicana, SA de CV v. Zoetis, Inc. (2015)
Plaintiffs need not have purchased the vaccine lots at issue directly from Defendants to have “conferred benefits on the defendant.” See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006); D.A.
green
Car Sense, Inc. v. American Special Risk, LLC (2014)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414 (E.D.Pa.2006).
green
Alsa Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc. (2014)
Absence of a Fiduciary Relationship In order “[t]o allege a breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must [first] establish that a fiduciary or confidential relationship existed between [the plaintiff] and the defendants.” Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414 (E.D.Pa.2006).
green
Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. v. VWR International LLC (2013)
Pennsylvania’s unjust enrichment law does not require the conferral to be direct: “The claim of unjust enrichment simply requires that plaintiff 'confer' benefits on a defendant; it does not require that plaintiff 'directly confer’ those benefits.” Global Ground Support, 581 F.Supp.2d at 676 (quoting Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006)); see also, e.g., Pennsylvania ex rel.
Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 419 (E.D.Pa.2006) (Complaint’s allegations that defendants targeted unsophisticated consumers struggling with financial difficulties by obtaining and keeping service fees and monthly payments under false pretenses were sufficiently distinct from a breach of contract claim to withstand the gist of the action doctrine at the pleading stage); see also ClinMicro Immunology Ctr., LLC v. PrimeMed, P.C., 2013 WL 3776264 (M.D.Pa.
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414 (E.D.Pa.2006).
green
Banner Life Insurance v. U.S. Bank (2013)
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414 (E.D.Pa.2006).
green
Bral Corp. v. Johnstown America Corp. (2013)
Aug. 7, 2009) (quoting Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006) (citations omitted)).
green
Lefta Associates v. Hurley (2012)
The claim of unjust enrichment simply requires that plaintiff ‘confer’ benefits on a defendant; it does not require that plaintiff ‘directly confer those benefits.’ ” Id. (quoting Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006)).
green
Stout Street Funding LLC v. Johnson (2012)
Moreover, “[p]laintiffs need not have directly dealt with each defendant in order to allege a claim of unjust enrichment against them.” Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006).
Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414 (E.D.Pa.2006) (quoting Pa. S.S.J.I. § 4.16).
Although the gist of the action question is a legal one, see eToll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., 2002 PA Super 347 , 811 A.2d 10, 15 (2002) ("The question of whether the gist of the action doctrine applies is an issue of law ...."), it often requires a fact-intensive analysis as to the true nature of a claim, as is the case here, see Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 418 (E.D.Pa. 2006) (acknowledging that "whether tort and contract claims…
acknowledging that "whether tort and contract claims are separate and distinct can be a factually intensive inquiry" (quotations omitted)
green
Youtie v. MacY's Retail Holding, Inc. (2009)
See e.g., Jackson, 230 S.W.3d at 348 , breach of contract claim requires damages; Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 414-15 (E.D.Pa.2006), *528 breach of fiduciary duty claim requires a suffered injury harm; McDermott v. Party City Corp., 11 F.Supp.2d 612 , 626 n. 18 (E.D.Pa.1998), breach of duty of loyalty requires a suffered injury; Rossi v. Schlarbaum, 600 F.Supp.2d 650, 659 (E.D.Pa.2009), tortious interference with business and employment relatio…
green
Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, N.A. (2009)
Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Pled with Enough Particularity To adequately plead a claim of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty under Pennsylvania state law a plaintiff must plead the following elements: “(1) a breach of fiduciary duty owed to another; (2) knowledge of the breach by the aider and abettor; and, (3) substantial assistance or encouragement by the aider and abettor in effecting that breach.” Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp.,…
The claim of unjust enrichment simply requires that plaintiff “confer” benefits on a defendant; it does not require that plaintiff “directly confer” those benefits.” Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006).
While numerous courts have talked-the-talk that grouping of multiple state laws is lawful and possible, very few courts have walked the grouping walk. “[W]hen district courts have faced the problem of nationwide classes which seek to apply state consumer protection laws, those courts have refused to certify a class, in part because choice of law would require applying the consumer protection law of each class member’s home state.” Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440…
Re-Source US’s Mot. to Dismiss 10-11 (citing Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006); Northeast Fence & Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy Quigley Co., 933 A.2d 664, 668 (Pa.Super.Ct.2007)).) Therefore, based on Plaintiffs own pleadings, even if a benefit was conferred upon Defendants, it was not one that was caused by any actions, misleading or otherwise, of any Defendant.
green
Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.) (2007)
Federal court decisions recognizing the existence of a cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty include Chicago Title, 2007 WL 1118322 , at *10-*11; Reis, 484 F.Supp.2d at 351-52 ; Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 417-418 (E.D.Pa.2006); Adena, Inc. v. Cohn, 162 F.Supp.2d 351 (E.D.Pa.2001); Stone St.
Under Pennsylvania law, the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are: “(1) a misrepresentation, (2) a fraudulent utterance thereof, (3) an intention by the maker that the recipient will thereby be induced to act, (4) justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation and (5) damage to the recipient as the proximate result.” Petruska v. Gannon University, 462 F.3d 294, 310 (3d Cir.2006) (quoting Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 530 Pa. 11, 19 , 606 A.2d 444 …
Pa. June 22, 2000); accord Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp.2d 392, 418 (E.D.
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.
Pa. June 22, 2000); accord Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp.2d 392, 418 (E.D.
green
Hvizdak, R. v. Linn, D. (2018)
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 410 (E.D.
green
Hvizdak, R. v. Linn, D. (2018)
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp. , 440 F.Supp.2d 392 , 410 (E.D.
green
Brown v. Access Midstream Partners, L.P. (2015)
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006) (allowing claims for unjust enrichment to proceed against defendants who were not parties to the original contract) (citing Com. ex rel.
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006); Temple Univ.
green
Robert Addie v. Christian Kjaer (2013)
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392, 418 (E.D.
green
Rahemtulla v. Hassam (2008)
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 420 (E.D.Pa.2006) (allowing claims for unjust enrichment to proceed against defendants who were not parties to the original contract).
See Baker v. Family Credit Counseling Corp., 440 F.Supp.2d 392, 404 (E.D.Pa.2006) (“Simply because an organization purports to offer a ‘debt management plan’ to reduce a consumer’s credit rates and payments does not mean that the organization cannot be held liable under CROA.”).