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.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendant Commonwealth Land’s Motion to
Dismiss in its entirety. An appropriate Order follows.