Filed February 27, 2017
10-1857, 2011 WL3687855, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2011). Case 3:16-cv-00369-BAS-JMA Document 25-2 Filed 02/27/17 PageID.674 Page 8 of 35 Variations in State Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices Laws 82854911v1 JDX PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION CLASS ACTION PROHIBITION STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS & DISCOVERY RULE ACTUAL INJURY DECEPTION RELIANCE / PROXIMATE CAUSATION AFFIRMATIVE ACTS / MATERIAL OMISSIONS SCIENTER DAMAGES & REMEDIES LIMITATIONS ON UNJUST ENRICHMENT OTHER Ct. App. 1997);Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So. 2d 322, 331-32 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007); Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1178 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Prohias v. Pfizer, Inc., 490 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1236-37 (S.D. Fla. 2007) .
Filed November 17, 2014
SeeEx. C. 23 E.g., Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So. 2d 322, 331-32 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007); Howard v. Turnbull, 316 S.W.3d 431, 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010); High v. Davis, 584 P.2d 725, 736 (Or. 1978) (en banc); Winters v. Cnty. of Clatsop, 150 P.3d 1104, 1108 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Filed December 15, 2014
See Am. Safety Ins. Servs. Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So.2d 322, 331-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)(dismissing an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff could not allege that it conferred a benefit on the plaintiffs). An indirect benefit is not sufficient to support a claim for unjust enrichment.