X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 37 / 38

109 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

37 / 38

Here, Plaintiffs have not plead any contract claims because Plaintiffs did not have a contract

with Defendant. Rather, Plaintiffs submit that TICA imposes on Defendant and its agents a duty to

charge the rate prescribed in the TIRBOP Manual. See Markocki I, 527 F. Supp.2d at 420-21

(denying a gist of the action defense). Because Plaintiffs have properlyaverred that the overcharging

arose from this duty and the failure of Defendant to adequately supervise its title agents, and in the

absence of a contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant, there is sufficient evidence at this stage to

find tortious conduct. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV

under Rule 12(b)(6) at this time.

III. Unjust Enrichment.

Lastly, Plaintiffs’ claim of unjust enrichment will survive Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

At this stage, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to plead unjust enrichment in the alternative. See

Sudofsky v. JDC, Inc., No. 03-1491, 2003 WL 22358448, *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2003) (“Plaintiff’s

claims are alternative theories of recovery based on the same factual circumstances. It would serve

no purpose at this early point in the litigation to limit Plaintiff’s avenues of recovery when the

underlying facts and events for all claims are the same.”).

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendant Commonwealth Land’s Motion to

Dismiss in its entirety. An appropriate Order follows.

37

Document info
Document views109
Page views109
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 13:01:31 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments