Fernando v. Sareen

How courts have described this case

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

• permitting an unjust enrichment claim to proceed in the alternative because there was a “dispute concerning this contract, particularly with regard to the meaning of certain terms.”
• “[Plaintiff] fails to plead that [defendant] had the requisite ‘meeting of the minds’ with the other .. i [defendants necessary to enter into a conspiracy.”
• plaintiff failed to allege “the requisite ‘meeting of the minds’ ... necessary to enter into a conspiracy”
• plaintiff failed to allege ―the requisite ‗meeting of the minds‘ . . . necessary to enter into a conspiracy‖
• ―[Plaintiff] fails to plead that [defendant] had the requisite ‗meeting of the minds‘ with the other . . . [d]efendants necessary to enter into a conspiracy.‖
• ―A prima facie case requires factual allegations that suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between [the defendants] and the forum state.‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).