Summary
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
Summary of this case from Seubert & Assocs. v. The Ambassador Grp.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2155.
November 30, 2010
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants Sudhakar Goverdhanam, Prime Technology Group, Inc., and Service Direct Group LLC to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket No. 15) and the Response of Plaintiff Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. (Docket No. 18), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim (Count III) is DENIED;
b. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's conversion claim (Count IV) is DENIED;
c. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's fraud claim (Count V) is GRANTED;
d. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's fraud and intentional misrepresentation claim (Count VII) is GRANTED;
e. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim (Count VIII) is GRANTED;
f. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's conspiracy claim (Count IX) is DENIED;
g. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for unlawful access to stored communications (Count X) is DENIED;
h. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for fraud and related activity in connection with computers (Count XI) is DENIED;
i. Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.