From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PARKMAN v. ELAM

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Mar 17, 2009
Action No. 3:08-CV-690 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2009)

Opinion

Action No. 3:08-CV-690.

March 17, 2009


ORDER


THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Docket No. 26), filed January 26, 2009. Defendants attack Plaintiffs' claims for Constructive Fraud, Fraud and Misrepresentation, Attorneys' Fees, and Punitive Damages. Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their cause of action based upon Virginia's Consumer Protection Act, and Defendants abandoned their challenge of Plaintiffs' "Veterinary Malpractice" claim.

Upon due consideration, for the reasons stated from the bench and provided in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, Defendants' Motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Constructive Fraud, Fraud and Misrepresentation, Punitive Damages, and Attorneys' Fees claims are hereby DISMISSED.

Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

PARKMAN v. ELAM

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Mar 17, 2009
Action No. 3:08-CV-690 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2009)
Case details for

PARKMAN v. ELAM

Case Details

Full title:KIM PARKMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARLTON NICHOLAS ELAM, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2009

Citations

Action No. 3:08-CV-690 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2009)

Citing Cases

Baker v. Elam

Consequently, Baker's claim for statutory attorneys' fees under the VCPA must also be dismissed. Under the…

Rabel v. Huntington Nat'l Bank

Plaintiff's advocacy on behalf of this language is ill-advised, insofar as Plaintiff "apparently failed to…