Multifamily Captive Group, LLC v. Assurance Risk Managers, Inc.

Good Law
629 F. Supp. 2d 1135·2009 WL 1505306·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44446
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 27, 20092:08-cr-00547California5,666 words

Opinion

Opinion

Damrell, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendant California Apartment Association (“CAA” or “defendant”) moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, and detrimental reliance claims. Plaintiffs Multifamily Captive Group (“MCG”) and Samantha Gumenick (collectively “plaintiffs”) move for summary judgment on their unjust enrichment/ restitution claim, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether CAA received a benefit from plaintiffs’ efforts, this benefit was received at the expense of plaintiffs, and it is unjust for defendants to retain this benefit. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff MCG is a Maryland corporation offering insurance programs tailored to the needs of multifamily and real estate property owners and managers. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed May 15, 2008, at ¶¶ 1, 10.) According to the Complaint, MCG “brings together experts in residential and commercial real estate with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.