Wright v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Celestin v. Martelly

    698 F. Supp. 3d 443 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    Moreover, even if the TAC did specify what precisely these Defendants stated, the TAC would be deficient because it lacks any detail whatsoever about which Plaintiff saw which representation, and what each Plaintiff did as a result. See Wright v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., 372 F. Supp. 3d 61, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (dismissing GBL claims where complaint "fail[ed] to identify the specific advertisements seen by each plaintiff"); see also Abraham v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 2d 222, 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (dismissing GBL claim that "contain[ed] only general allegations about disclosures to all [p]laintiffs and does not contain any allegations about the specific disclosures [the individual plaintiff] did or did not receive"). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' GBL claims must be dismissed.

  2. McVetty v. Tomtom N. Am., Inc.

    19 CV 4908 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2021)   Cited 8 times

    As to choice of law, the purported consumer agreement with the New York choice of law provision is not mentioned in the Complaint but, even if it were, territorial connection is established through the facts of the alleged transaction or deception and not the parties' preferences. See, e.g., Wright v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., 372 F. Supp. 3d 61, 66 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ("Stretching Section 349 to apply to all cases where the parties agree on New York as their law of choice would depart from [the] instruction to focus on the strength of New York's connection to the transaction at issue.") Second, McVetty is mistaken that the allegation that he and others paid a premium for TomTom Products is sufficient to allege injury.

  3. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Beccela's ETC., LLC

    403 F. Supp. 3d 813 (N.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    "Absent an express private right of action, New York courts will only conclude that ‘a private right of action may fairly be implied’ where: (1) the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme." Wright v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc. , 372 F. Supp. 3d 61, 65 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) The Court agrees with the reasoned decision in Worldhomecenter.

  4. Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC

    Case No. 18-cv-01298-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2019)   Cited 6 times
    Denying motion to dismiss fraud claim based on economic loss rule

    "To state a claim under Section 349, 'a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.'" Wright v. Publrs. Clearing House, Inc., 372 F. Supp. 3d 61, 66 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., 967 N.E.2d 675, 675 (N.Y.2012)). Plaintiffs satisfy these requirements and, consequently, the Court rejects Defendants' argument that "Plaintiffs fail to allege any misleading statements or causation." (ECF No. 14-1 at 25.)