Swartz v. Tyco International Ltd.

Swartz v. Tyco International Ltd.

Plaintiff:	Mark H. Swartz
Defendant:	Tyco International Ltd.
Case Number:	1:2012cv04060
Filed:	May 22, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Thomas P. Griesa
Nature of Suit:	Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 22, 2012	Filing 12 OPINION re: 6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, filed by Tyco International Ltd. Tyco moves to dismiss Swartzs complaint in the new action on the ground that the claims were required to be brought as compulsory counterclaims in the Tyco action bu t were not. The motion is granted. It is apparent, however, that Swartzs related claim for unjust enrichment is duplicative of his breach of contract claim. Under New York law, a claim for unjust enrichment is unavailable for conduct that might also form the basis for an action for breach of contract. See Whitman Realty Group, Inc. v. Galano, 838 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588 (2d Dept. 2007). Therefore this unjust enrichment claim must also be dismissed. However, nothing in the present ruling should be construed as a departure from the ruling in the Tyco lawsuit to the extent that Swartz is entitled to retain the $44 million paid to him. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/22/2012) (ja)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 22, 2012

Filing 12 OPINION re: 6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, filed by Tyco International Ltd. Tyco moves to dismiss Swartzs complaint in the new action on the ground that the claims were required to be brought as compulsory counterclaims in the Tyco action bu t were not. The motion is granted. It is apparent, however, that Swartzs related claim for unjust enrichment is duplicative of his breach of contract claim. Under New York law, a claim for unjust enrichment is unavailable for conduct that might also form the basis for an action for breach of contract. See Whitman Realty Group, Inc. v. Galano, 838 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588 (2d Dept. 2007). Therefore this unjust enrichment claim must also be dismissed. However, nothing in the present ruling should be construed as a departure from the ruling in the Tyco lawsuit to the extent that Swartz is entitled to retain the $44 million paid to him. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/22/2012) (ja)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Swartz v. Tyco International Ltd.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mark H. Swartz
Represented By:	James Alfred Mitchell
Represented By:	Michael John Grudberg
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Tyco International Ltd.
Represented By:	Marshall Beil
Represented By:	Brian Emory Pumphrey
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?