Ainbinder v. Potter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that defendant consented to personal jurisdiction as to Count I, but not as to part of Count II or Count III
• dismissing unjust enrichment claim because “[e]ven reading the pleadings liberally, the plaintiffs have not coherently alleged how the defendants were unjustly enriched at the plaintiffs’ expense”
• “[e]ven reading the pleadings liberally, the plaintiffs have not coherently alleged how the defendants were unjustly enriched at the plaintiffs’ expense”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).