B. Damages for unjust enrichment
In California and other jurisdictions, unjust enrichment is no longer recognized as an independent cause of action.[1] Even when courts recognize unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action, they have failed to apply the concept to personal data collected and disseminated by parties in the absence of a contract or quasi-contract.
"[T]o state a claim for unjust enrichment under New York law, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant was enriched, (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense, and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require the defendant to make restitution.... [T]he claim against Torch, Acxiom, and SRS must be dismissed for failure to allege a legally cognizable relationship between plaintiffs and those defendants. Under New York law, the cause of action for unjust enrichment falls under the umbrella of quasi-contract, or contract implied-in-law.... To recover under this theory, a plaintiff must establish that it conferred a benefit on the defendant, thereby resulting in that defendant's unjust enrichment. This requires proof of a legally cognizable relationship between the parties. Critically, 'it is not enough that the defendant received a benefit from the activities of the plaintiff; if the services were performed at the behest of someone other than the defendant, the plaintiff must look to that person for recovery.' Plaintiffs in this case do not allege any facts to support a finding of 'direct dealings or an actual, substantive relationship' between themselves and any defendant other than JetBlue."[2]
[1] Douglas L. Johnson and Neville L. Johnson, What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 44, Fall 2010, p. 279.
[2] In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
C. Contract formation
"[T]o state a claim for unjust enrichment under New York law, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant was enriched, (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense, and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require the defendant to make restitution.... [T]he claim against Torch, Acxiom, and SRS must be dismissed for failure to allege a legally cognizable relationship between plaintiffs and those defendants. Under New York law, the cause of action for unjust enrichment falls under the umbrella of quasi-contract, or contract implied-in-law.... To recover under this theory, a plaintiff must establish that it conferred a benefit on the defendant, thereby resulting in that defendant's unjust enrichment. This requires proof of a legally cognizable relationship between the parties. Critically, 'it is not enough that the defendant received a benefit from the activities of the plaintiff; if the services were performed at the behest of someone other than the defendant, the plaintiff must look to that person for recovery.' Plaintiffs in this case do not allege any facts to support a finding of 'direct dealings or an actual, substantive relationship' between themselves and any defendant other than JetBlue."[2]
[1] Douglas L. Johnson and Neville L. Johnson, What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 44, Fall 2010, p. 279.
[2] In re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
C. Contract formation
Copyright 2014-2015 by Dennis O'Reilly/Rag Hall -- All rights reserved.