3 Citing briefs
Lavin v. Briefly Stated, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document
Filed May 17, 2010
Defendants’ argument that Lavin had notice of the one-year provision before he sued misses the point. Lavin may have learned of it after he left BS, but he never agreed to it and basic contract principles, as well as CPLR §201, therefore preclude his being bound by it.
Burton v. iYogi, Inc
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff Janet Burton's Complaint.. Document
Filed December 16, 2013
See N.Y. C.P.L.R. §201 (“An action . . . must be 6 The court in Gross v. Symantec Corp. also dismissed the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim “because an express contract existed between [the parties].” 2012 WL 3116158, at *13.
Keren Matana v. Merkin et al
MEMORANDUM & OPINION: Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted. Plaintiff's motion to strike is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its holder claim and its breach of implied contractual duty claim. If plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint, it must do so no later than August 20, 2013. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 12 and 15.
Filed July 30, 2013
See Dkt. 32. The Court does not reach that issue, because it finds American Pipe tolling unavailable even assuming § 201 is a statute of limitation. Case 1:13-cv-01534-PAE Document 41 Filed 07/30/13 Page 15 of 30 16 thereby undermine the Rule 23 class mechanism, to take advantage of the toll, a plaintiff must have been a member of the purported class: “[T]he commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.”