![]() ![]() The District Court stated that the quantum meruit claim “properly subsumed” Plaintiffs' concurrent unjust enrichment claim, and concluded that it “need not, and should not, separately decide claim, which should have been analyzed as a single quasi contract claim alongside Plaintiffs' quantum meruit claim.” Id. at *2 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court reasoned that it was permitted to analyze “quantum meruit and unjust enrichment together as a single quasi contract claim, or as a single claim for unjust enrichment.” Id. The District Court dismissed Learning Annex's unjust enrichment claim. The jury awarded $14,688,194.00 to the Plaintiffs on the quantum meruit claim. ![]() A jury returned a special verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on both claims. If I determine that Rich Dad was unjustly enriched then judgment will be entered for Learning Annex based on the jury's verdict on damages.ĭist. If the jury returns a verdict for Learning Annex on the quantum meruit claim, I will then determine whether Rich Dad was unjustly enriched. Harge the jury as to quantum meruit ․ and as to the elements of unjust enrichment, and will take an advisory verdict on unjust enrichment. Specifically, the District Court stated that it would: ![]() The case eventually proceeded to trial, and the District Court charged the jury as to quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, taking an advisory verdict on unjust enrichment. Following the collapse of the parties' business relationship, Plaintiffs asserted nineteen causes of action against Rich Global and Cashflow, including claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant Rich Global, LLC (“Rich Global”) and Defendant-Appellee Cashflow in the District Court. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. (“Cashflow”) on the quantum meruit claim against it. (together, “Learning Annex” or “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the District Court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to Defendant-Appellee Cashflow Technologies, Inc. Plaintiffs-Appellants Learning Annex Holdings, LLC and Learning Annex, LLC, Learning Annex, L.P. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Harmon, Hodgson Russ LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, AZ. Derosier, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Detroit, MI Mark A. Burns, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, AZ Phillip J. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY. Schaeffer, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY Jonathan A. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.įOR APPELLANTS: EDWIN G. CASHFLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, RICH GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant. LEARNING ANNEX HOLDINGS, LLC, LEARNING ANNEX, LLC, LEARNING ANNEX, L.P., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |