Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp.

10 Citing briefs

  1. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. et al v. Valley National Bank

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed July 12, 2017

    “The actual receipt and consideration of any misstatement remains central to the case of any plaintiff seeking to prove that he or she was deceived by the misstatement or omission.” Kaufman, 165 N.J. at 109. As such, American Express’s review of the Direct Air website, from which it learned that Direct Air’s money was being deposited into the VNB escrow account (see SSMF No. 11), is a sufficient basis to prevail.

  2. Advanced Office Software, Llc. v. S.P. Richards Company et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed January 21, 2017

    There are a long line of cases in New Jersey regarding “indirect reliance” as being a basis to sustain a common law fraud cause of action. For example, in Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 754 A.2d 1188, 1195 (N.J. 2000), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that indirect reliance allows a plaintiff to prove a fraud action when he or she heard a statement not from the party that defrauded him or her but from that party's agent or from someone to whom the party communicated the false statement with the intention that the victim hear it, rely on it, and act to his or her detriment". “[W]here false representations are made to one person with the intent that they be communicated to others for the purpose of Case 3:16-cv-02582-PGS-TJB Document 58 Filed 01/21/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 545 7 inducing the others to rely upon them, they may form the basis of an action for fraud by those others.'

  3. Oliver et al v. Funai Corporation, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed May 18, 2015

    Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must allege that he or she “actually received and considered the misstatement or omission, however indirectly uttered, before he or she completed the transaction.” Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188 (N.J. 2000). Plaintiffs, however, do not claim to have seen or relied upon any statement by Defendants prior to purchasing their televisions, aside from vague references to unspecified “advertising materials.”

  4. Oliver et al v. Funai Corporation, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed March 20, 2015

    Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must allege that he or she “actually received and considered the misstatement or omission, however indirectly uttered, before he or she completed the transaction.” Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188 (N.J. 2000). Plaintiffs, however, do not claim to have seen or relied upon any statement by Defendants prior to purchasing their televisions, aside from vague references to unspecified “advertising materials.”

  5. North Sound Capital LLC et al v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed January 30, 2015

    at 424. Finally, Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188 (N.J. 2000) is inapt because there, unlike here, the “plaintiff . . . expressly stated that she did not consider i-Stat’s financial statements, either by herself or in consultation with an investment professional,” id. at 1197.

  6. Harden Manufacturing Corporation v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed March 19, 2007

    Ins. Co., 752 A.2d 807 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. 2000), pointing to dicta in Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188, 1995 (N.J. 2000), a case addressing whether a fraud-on-the-market theory (which Plaintiffs have repeatedly disclaimed) should be applied to establish indirect reliance in a consumer fraud case, and two cases applying that dicta, Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., 201 F.R.D. 341, 347-49 (D.N.J. 2001), and Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2d 506, 518-19 (D.N.J. 2002), which, as Plaintiffs pointed out in their opening brief, expressly distinguished Varacallo. See 228 F. Supp. 2d at 520 n.14.

  7. Harden Manufacturing Corporation v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed February 22, 2007

    Ins. Co., 752 A.2d 807 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. 2000), pointing to dicta in Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188, 1995 (N.J. 2000), a case addressing whether a fraud-on-the-market theory (which Plaintiffs have repeatedly disclaimed) should be applied to establish indirect reliance in a consumer fraud case, and two cases applying that dicta, Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., 201 F.R.D. 341, 347-49 (D.N.J. 2001), and Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2d 506, 518-19 (D.N.J. 2002), which, as Plaintiffs pointed out in their opening brief, expressly distinguished Varacallo. See 228 F. Supp. 2d at 520 n.14.

  8. Harden Manufacturing Corporation v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss The Second Amended Class Action Complaint and The Second Coordinated Amended Complaint

    Filed July 27, 2006

    First Capital Corp., CV 97-281, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21244, at *53 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2000) (citing In re Jackson Nat l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., 183 F.R.D. 217, 221 (W.D. Mich. 1998)); Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2d 506, 520 n.14 (D.N.J. 2002); cf. Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188 (N.J. 2000) (explaining that [t]he actual receipt and consideration of any misrepresentation remains central to the case of any plaintiff seeking to prove that he or she was Case 1:04-cv-10981-PBS Document 400 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 13 of 25 9 deceived by the misstatement or omission ). Because the Class Plaintiffs here have alleged misrepresentations by multiple speakers relaying various messages and because these plaintiffs have not alleged that all class members were exposed to identical misrepresentations, reliance cannot be presumed.

  9. Caponegro v. The United States Department of Housing And Urban Development et al

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed January 31, 2017

    To prevail on a common law fraud claim under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must allege that he or she “actually received and considered the misstatement or omission, however indirectly uttered, before he or she completed the transaction.” Weske v. Samsung Electronics of America, Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 599, 607-08 (D.N.J. 2014) citing Kaufman v. I-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 108 (2000). The plaintiff must also establish (1) a failure on his or her part to discover the cause of action notwithstanding the concealment, despite the exercise of due care.

  10. IN RE: Trasylol Products Liability Litigation

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed November 12, 2009

    Id. at *17-18; see also Ironworkers, 585 F. Supp. 2d at 1346; Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 311 (Tenn. 2008) (proximate cause is required element of fraud); Banco Popular N. America v. Gandi, 876 A.2d 253, 260 (N.J. 2005) (same); Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 822 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tenn. 1991) (same as to negligent misrepresentation); Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188, 1196 (N.J. 2000) (same). Unjust enrichment.