Filed August 4, 2015
Therefore GEO never unjustly received any benefit at the expense of the Plaintiffs or other detainees. See Bayh, 573 N.E.2d at 408-09; Britvar, 791 P.2d at 1184; Stanford, 849 P.2d at 923. Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that GEO was unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiffs are simply inadequate to plausibly state a claim for unjust enrichment.
Filed June 14, 2018
To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, a claimant must establish that a measurable benefit has been conferred on the defendant under such circumstances that the defendant's retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust. Bayh, 573 N.E.2d at 408.” Zoeller v. E. Chicago Second Century, Inc., 904 N.E.2d 213, 220 (Ind. 2009).
Filed July 7, 2017
“One who labors without an expectation of payment cannot recover in quasi-contract.” Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d at 408. USDC IN/ND case 3:17-cv-00439-JD-MGG document 16 filed 07/07/17 page 5 of 11 6
Filed June 1, 2016
5, 2001) (“shower squad and laundry”); Channer, 112 F.3d at 219 (kitchen service); Hause, 993 F.2d at 1081, 1085 (cleaning common areas of a cell-block); Bijeol, 579 F.2d at 424–25 & n.1 (dusting, vacuuming, and emptying ashtrays in common areas); Jackson, 2013 WL 3810301, at *10 (cleaning communal toilets that had overflowed and “clean[ing] the housing unit area”); Loving v. Kelly, No. 11-355, 2011 WL 4344109, at *1-2 (M.D. La. July 27, 2011) (sweeping and mopping hallways and a patient day room, disinfecting a patient bathroom and shower stall, and removing trash from the ward); Ford v. Nassau Cnty. Exec., 41 F. Supp. 2d 392, 394–95, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (pushing a food cart, distributing trays of food, mopping, and sweeping); Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 409–12 (Ind. 1991) (fixing meals, scrubbing dishes, cutting grass, washing sheets and clothing, and cleaning floors). Case 1:14-cv-02887-JLK Document 51 Filed 06/01/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 56 8 sanitation” through the ICE-authorized VWP.
Filed December 19, 2014
112 F.3d at 119. Bayh likewise expressly distinguished cases holding persons detained in custodial situations within private mental hospitals as having “little persuasive value,” 573 N.E.2d 398, 411, and it noted that the Bayh plaintiffs’ 28 573 N.E.2d 398, 412 (Ind. 1991). 33 unjust enrichment argument might have succeeded if “the coercive defendant [were] a private actor[.]”
Filed November 2, 2007
35 California, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington courts also deny recovery under an unjust enrichment theory where an express contract governs the relationship between the parties. See, e.g., Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 409 (Ind. 1991) (discussing the rule “which says recovery cannot be grounded on unjust enrichment where a contract controls the rights of the parties”); Codell Constr. Co. v. Kentucky, 566 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977) (“The doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application in a situation where there is an explicit Case 1:06-cv-07023 Document 79 Filed 11/02/07 Page 43 of 49 34 Essentially, Plaintiffs seek to rewrite the terms of Sears’ Warranty so as to compel Sears to provide free repairs outside the warranty period.
Filed March 26, 2007
28 Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Texas courts also deny recovery for unjust enrichment where an express contract governs the relationship of the parties. See, e.g., Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 409 (Ind. 1991) (discussing the rule “which says recovery cannot be grounded on unjust enrichment where a contract controls the rights of the parties”); Codell Constr. Co. v. Kentucky, 566 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977) (“The doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application in a situation where there is an explicit contract that has been performed.”)
Filed January 16, 2015
There is no actual law which applies such a limitation. Plaintiffs claim that Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 411 (Ind. 1991) “distinguished cases holding persons detained in custodial situations in private mental hospitals as having ‘little persuasive value.’” Doc.
Filed May 5, 2014
Plaintiffs’ claims for restitution and unjust enrichment also fail because Defendants were not unjustly enriched. A claim for unjust enrichment “is a legal fiction invented by the common law courts in order to permit a recovery ... where the circumstances are such that under the law of natural and immutable justice there should be a recovery ....” Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 408 (Ind. 1991) (citation omitted). “A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.”
Filed July 19, 2012
An Indiana unjust enrichment plaintiff must show only “that a measurable benefit has been conferred on the defendant under such circumstances that the defendant’s retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust.” Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 408 (Ind. 2001). An unjust enrichment claim will lie in Indiana where the defendant is not alleged to have been involved in any wrongdoing.