Hayat Masudi and Palwasha Masudi v. Michael Stuart Sher; Mikey’s Holdings, Inc.; ArcBest II, Inc.; Panther II Transportation, Inc.; Expediter Services, LLC; and Does 1-4

Summary

The Eastern District of New York granted ArcBest II, Inc. and Panther II Transportation, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and Expediter Services, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, or violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Truth in Lending Act. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to those defendants, and leave to amend was denied as futile.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint failed to state fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud, negligent misrepresentation, or innocent misrepresentation claims against ArcBest and Panther.
2. Plaintiffs failed to state a breach-of-contract claim against ArcBest or Panther because neither was a party or signatory to the relevant agreements, and the complaint did not allege that either entity breached any obligation.
3. Plaintiffs failed to state unjust-enrichment or conversion claims against ArcBest and Panther.
4. Plaintiffs failed to state a breach-of-contract claim against Expediter.
5. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act because they did not allege membership in a protected class or the other required elements of an ECOA discrimination claim.
6. Plaintiffs failed to state claims under the Truth in Lending Act or Consumer Credit Protection Act because the transaction was commercial and plaintiffs were not parties to the lease agreement.
7. Leave to file a third amended complaint against ArcBest, Panther, and Expediter was denied because amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud, negligent misrepresentation, or innocent misrepresentation claims against ArcBest and Panther.
2. Whether the second amended complaint stated a breach-of-contract claim against ArcBest, Panther, or Expediter.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated unjust-enrichment or conversion claims against ArcBest and Panther.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, or Consumer Credit Protection Act against Expediter.
5. Whether plaintiffs' allegations supported additional consumer-protection or fraud claims against Expediter and whether leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed