Carberry v. Hess

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “an omission ‘cannot be described in terms of the time, place, and contents of the misrepresentation’” (quoting Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 973 F.Supp. 539, 552 (D. Md. 1997))
• taking judicial notice of the fact that defendant applied for and received a mortgage lender license but not “of the representations made in the application”
• noting that Rule 9(b) is less strictly applied with respect to claims of fraud by concealment because “an omission cannot be described in terms of the time, place, and contents of the misrepresentation or the identity of the person making the misrepresentation”
• considering defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and finding that the “plaintiffs conelusory allegations in the Complaint, even if proven, are not sufficient to justify the piercing of the corporate veil”
• “[P]ermitting . . . corporate entities to circumvent the FDCPA by relying on affiliated entities . . . contradicts this Court’s obligation to construe broadly the FDCPA to effectuate its remedial purpose.”
• “Insofar as plaintiff is alleging damages for statutory violations of the FDCPA and the MMFPA, premised on violations of the MCALA, her claims sound in tort.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).