Bayh v. Sonnenburg

11 Citing briefs

  1. Menocal et al v. The GEO Group, Inc.

    MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Dismiss

    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.

  2. GHRIST v. ATOS IT SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES, INC.

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    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).

  3. Tjl Gourmet Subs, Llc v. Parth 13, Inc. et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    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

  4. Menocal et al v. The GEO Group, Inc.

    RESPONSE to 49 MOTION to Certify Class UNDER RULE 23

    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.

  5. Menocal et al v. The GEO Group, Inc.

    RESPONSE to 11 MOTION to Dismiss

    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[.]”

  6. In Re: Sears, Roebuck and Co. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation

    MEMORANDUM

    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.

  7. In Re: Sears, Roebuck and Co. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation

    MEMORANDUM

    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.”)

  8. Menocal et al v. The GEO Group, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to 11 MOTION to Dismiss

    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.

  9. Kuhn et al v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. et al

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and in the alternative for failure to state a claim

    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.”

  10. Kunzelmann v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    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.