Law School Case Brief
Almeciga v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting, Inc. - 185 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Defendant Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as a motion for sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel. The court issued a bottom-line order granting defendant’s motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice against all defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
Did the court err in granting the motion for judgment of the pleadings in favor of the defendant?
The court affirmed and found that the allegations of the plaintiff did not state any cause of action by itself, because, among much else, plaintiff plainly did not rely in any respect on the release she maintained she never signed and was a forgery. Rather, the gravamen of her fraud claim was that defendants entered into an oral agreement with plaintiff that they had no intention of honoring, which is precisely the sort of duplicative fraud claim that is not cognizable under New York law. Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim had to be dismissed as duplicative of her breach of contract claim.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class