It is a general principle of corporation law that the officers and employees of a corporate entity are its agents. to Dismiss at 2-3.) Plaintiff contends that since the contract was for legal services, Fitton (a non-lawyer), and Orfanedes (a lawyer), are each liable as individuals for malpractice in tort and in contract. Defendants argue that Count 1 fails to state a claim for breach of contract by Fitton or Orfanedes because they were not parties to the agreement. ¶¶ 57, 59) (2) failed and/or refused to pay for plaintiffs legal fees ( see id.) and (3) attempted to coerce plaintiff into modifying the agreement ( see id. In Count 1 of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants breached the agreement with plaintiff when they: (1) withdrew from representing plaintiff in his criminal and civil matters ( see Compl.
Breach of Contract by Fitton or Orfanedes However, the Court need not accept asserted inferences or conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. This Court must construe the allegations and facts in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must grant the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged. 2d 929 (2007) (abrogating the prior standard which required appearance, beyond a doubt, that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), this Court will dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp.
Watch judicial consent 1994 professional#
Defendants' motion seeks an order from this Court dismissing the following claims: (1) breach of contract by Fitton and Orfanedes (2) breach of fiduciary duty by Fitton (3) violations of ethical standards of professional conduct (4) unjust enrichment (4) violations of the Lanham Act and (5) appropriation of name and likeness. ( See Pl.'s Opp'n at 2.) Plaintiff filed the instant suit on February 6, 2007, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of standards of professional conduct, unjust enrichment, Lanham Act violations, and appropriation of name and likeness.ĭefendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on March 15, 2007, which was followed by plaintiffs opposition filed on April 16, 2007. ( See id.) The relationship between the parties ended in early 2005 when defendants allegedly failed to prosecute and defend Paul's claims and interests, attempted to coerce Paul into modifying the contract, and unilaterally and without Paul's consent, withdrew from representing Paul. ( See id.) The complaint further states that in return for providing him representation, Paul authorized Judicial Watch to solicit donations from the public for championing Paul's case, and to seek publicity for Paul in service of the public interest.
¶ 2.) According to Paul's complaint, the representation included providing and/or paying for Paul's legal representation in actions he instituted, and defending him in actions brought against him alleging securities law and related violations of campaign financing laws and civil litigation. Judicial Watch and Paul entered into a legal representation agreement whereby Judicial Watch agreed to represent him in connection with his whistle-blowing activities. Paul ("Paul"), in connection with plaintiffs whistle-blowing activities directed at Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign. ¶ 10.) This case arises out of defendants' representation of plaintiff Peter F. Orfanedes ("Orfanedes") is the Secretary and a director of Judicial Watch.
Fitton ("Fitton"), is President of Judicial Watch. ("Judicial Watch"), is a non-profit organization formed under the laws of the District of Columbia. Upon consideration of the filings, the entire record herein, and the relevant law, defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.ĭefendant Judicial Watch, Inc.
This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs opposition, and the reply thereto. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
0 kommentar(er)
