Segroves ex rel. Segroves v. Hartson

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that the viability of a holder claim under such circumstances remains an open question under New York law
• noting that the limitations period for unjust enrichment is “six years where plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy, but three years where plaintiff seeks monetary damages”
• noting that that the period for- unjust enrichment begins to run “upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• rejecting a holder claim on the ground that the investor had \failed to plead such a claim with the particularity required by Rule 9(b)\
• “The Appellate Division, First Department, has recently held that New York law does not recognize a holder claim seeking to recover lost profits.”
• “[A] claim for common law fraud under New York law must satisfy the requirements of the heightened pleading standard under [Rule] 9(b)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).