holding that the gist of the action doctrine barred plaintiff's fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation claims against the individual defendant, who served as the CEO of corporate defendant, despite the lack of contractual relationship with the individual defendant, because the CEO's misrepresentations concerned the subject matter of the contract between the plaintiff and the company

In Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. v. Goverdhanam, No. 10-CV-2155, 2010 WL 4910176 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010), plaintiff asserted, inter alia, that defendants had breached a confidentiality agreement and also wrongfully converted intellectual property that was the subject of that agreement.

analyzing an SCA claim and explaining, "[w]ithout delving into the operational intricacies of Plaintiff's website (a task inappropriate for this stage of pleading), the Court finds that such allegations, taken as true, raise a reasonable inference that Defendants accessed confidential information incidental to its transfer to authorized users of Plaintiff's site — not simply data stored on Plaintiff's computers. These allegations, though notably vague, are enough to fulfill Plaintiff's burden under Twombly and Rule 12(b)."

dismissing fraud claim based on gist of the action doctrine when defendant was officer of the company with which plaintiff had a contract and fraud claim merely restated contract claim

dismissing because “Plaintiff's breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation claims all relate [d] to Defendant's alleged failure to comply with the terms specifically outlined” in the contract

permitting conversion claim