From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. v. Goverdhanam

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2155 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010)

Summary

holding that the gist of the action doctrine barred plaintiff's fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation claims against the individual defendant, who served as the CEO of corporate defendant, despite the lack of contractual relationship with the individual defendant, because the CEO's misrepresentations concerned the subject matter of the contract between the plaintiff and the company

Summary of this case from Seubert & Assocs. v. The Ambassador Grp.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2155.

November 30, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants Sudhakar Goverdhanam, Prime Technology Group, Inc., and Service Direct Group LLC to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket No. 15) and the Response of Plaintiff Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. (Docket No. 18), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim (Count III) is DENIED;
b. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's conversion claim (Count IV) is DENIED;
c. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's fraud claim (Count V) is GRANTED;
d. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's fraud and intentional misrepresentation claim (Count VII) is GRANTED;
e. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim (Count VIII) is GRANTED;
f. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's conspiracy claim (Count IX) is DENIED;
g. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for unlawful access to stored communications (Count X) is DENIED;
h. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for fraud and related activity in connection with computers (Count XI) is DENIED;
i. Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. v. Goverdhanam

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2155 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010)

holding that the gist of the action doctrine barred plaintiff's fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation claims against the individual defendant, who served as the CEO of corporate defendant, despite the lack of contractual relationship with the individual defendant, because the CEO's misrepresentations concerned the subject matter of the contract between the plaintiff and the company

Summary of this case from Seubert & Assocs. v. The Ambassador Grp.

In Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. v. Goverdhanam, No. 10-CV-2155, 2010 WL 4910176 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010), plaintiff asserted, inter alia, that defendants had breached a confidentiality agreement and also wrongfully converted intellectual property that was the subject of that agreement.

Summary of this case from Mun. Auth. of Westmoreland Cnty. v. CNX Gas Co.

analyzing an SCA claim and explaining, "[w]ithout delving into the operational intricacies of Plaintiff's website (a task inappropriate for this stage of pleading), the Court finds that such allegations, taken as true, raise a reasonable inference that Defendants accessed confidential information incidental to its transfer to authorized users of Plaintiff's site — not simply data stored on Plaintiff's computers. These allegations, though notably vague, are enough to fulfill Plaintiff's burden under Twombly and Rule 12(b)."

Summary of this case from Worrell v. Harshe

dismissing fraud claim based on gist of the action doctrine when defendant was officer of the company with which plaintiff had a contract and fraud claim merely restated contract claim

Summary of this case from Nkansah v. Aiyegbusi

dismissing because “Plaintiff's breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation claims all relate [d] to Defendant's alleged failure to comply with the terms specifically outlined” in the contract

Summary of this case from Plexicoat America, LLC v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

permitting conversion claim

Summary of this case from Kimberton Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Primary Physiciancare, Inc.
Case details for

Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. v. Goverdhanam

Case Details

Full title:INTEGRATED WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., D/B/A DUMPSTER SOURCE…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 30, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2155 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010)

Citing Cases

Zimmer Dev. Co. v. TVC Dev. Co.

Plaintiff cannot detach Verrichia from his status as an agent of Defendant TVC Development Company because,…

Worrell v. Harshe

At this stage of the case, the Court cannot expect Plaintiffs to allege particular facts as to where any…