Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Adams v. Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff LLP

Adams v. Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff LLP

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

March 30, 2009, Decided; March 30, 2009, Filed

07 Civ. 7017 (DAB)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Jon Adams ("Plaintiff" or "Adams") brings this Complaint containing seven causes of action against Defendant Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff LLP ("Defendant," or "Labaton," or the "Firm") alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, quantum meruit, and conversion surrounding an alleged oral promise made by a Labaton senior associate to Plaintiff during his interview with the Firm. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the associate told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would receive ten percent of attorney's fees earned by the Firm on all cases that Plaintiff was responsible for bringing to the Firm, that the statement made an oral contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, and that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff by refusing to pay Plaintiff the percentage of fees he was  [*2] promised.

Defendant Labaton moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendant argues that all of Plaintiff's claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged the facts necessary to establish apparent authority to bind the Firm to the alleged oral promise made by Keller, and therefore, the alleged promise did not create a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's fraud, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation claims should be dismissed, further, because Plaintiff has not set forth facts supporting the reasonableness of his reliance on the alleged oral promise, as required by those claims. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's fraud and conversion claims are duplicative of his breach of contract claim, and accordingly must be dismissed.

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Compliant is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days leave to amend.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35085 *

JON ADAMS, Plaintiff, -against- LABATON, SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP, Defendant.

CORE TERMS

apparent authority, allegations, misrepresentation, interview, promise, replead, bind, breach of contract claim, ten percent, conversion, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, alleged promise, third party, representations, connections, duplicative, amend, cases, words

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Business & Corporate Law, Authority to Act, Apparent Authority, Elements, Proof, General Overview, Conduct of Parties, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Fraud Claims, Torts, Fraud & Misrepresentation, Actual Fraud, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contract Formation, Consideration, Promissory Estoppel, Negligent Misrepresentation, Contracts Law, Breach, Breach of Contract Actions, Intentional Torts, Conversion, Remedies, Equitable Relief