Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 130.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 429 Words, 2,806 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/23015/187-1.pdf

Download Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut ( 130.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut
ase 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL )
WILLIAM NEWTON, ROBERT FTIZPATRICK, )
and MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, TNC., )
Plaintiffs, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 3 :03CV00644(CFD)
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
Defendants. )

DAVID W. GWYNN, RAQUEL GWYNN and )
GWYNN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., )
Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 3:03CV0l l54(CFD) .
I I
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
Defendants. ) MAY 5, 2006
THE RYAN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT THREE OF
I)EFENDANTS’ AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6) and Local Rule 7, plaintiffs, Bruce Charles Ryan,
Russell William Newton, Robert Fitzpatrick and Merit Capital Associates Inc. (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “Ryan Plaintiffs") hereby move the Court to dismiss count three,
unjust enrichment, of defendants National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA’s
and AIG Technical Services, Inc.’s Amended Counterclainis (defendants will be collectively
ORAL ARUGMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 2 of 3
referred to as "AlG"). In further support of this Motion to Disrniss, the Ryan Plaintiffs hereby
simultaneously submit herewith their Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss.
AIG can prove no set of facts to support its unjust enrichment claim. Moreover, in its
Amended Countereiaims AIG pleads the existence of an express contract, the insurance policy
the Ryan Plaintiffs bought from AIG in 2000. AIG cannot seek to recover under the equitable
theory of unjust enrichment when it has the ability to seek redress under a contract. Therefore,
_ AIG’s unjust enrichment Counterclaim, count three, should be dismissed.
I PLAINTIFFS, BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL
WILLIAM NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and
MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES INC.,
By /s/
Peter M. Nolin (ct06223)
Stephanie A. McLaughlin (ct22774)
Sandal: Hennessey & Greco LLP
707 Summer Street
· Stamford, CT 069014026
(203) 425-4200
(203) 325-8608 (fax)
pnolin(@,shglaw.com
[email protected]
I 2

ase 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 5, 2006, a copy ofthe foregoing document was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this
iiling will be sent by e—maiI to all parties by operation ofthe Court's electronic tiling system or
by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic iiling. Parties may access this tiling through the
Cou2:t's system.
/s/
Stephanie A. McLaughlin
3