How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask lwpat Your Own Question
lwpat
lwpat, Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 25387
Experience:  Attorney with over 35 years of business experience.
15417118
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
lwpat is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In a Federal case where defendant B is named only for deep

Resolved Question:

In a Federal case where defendant B is named only for deep pocket is removing this party by motion or answer in the pleadings? If by motion (FRCP 56 or other) what proof do I need other than affidavits? Background: Party A contracts with party B. Party A does not perform but sues party B for payment claiming party B d/b/a as Party C when in fact not true . . . Party C named under theory of Unjust Enrichment. Party A and B have contract Party C not party to contract and received no benefit.
Submitted: 8 years ago via USLaw.
Category: Business Law
Expert:  lwpat replied 8 years ago.
Sorry but I cannot understand your situation. Can you elaborate with specific details since your scenario is not clear.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Ok: Party A contracts with Party B. Party A does not perform but bills party B anyway. Party B won't pay. Party A sues claiming that party B d/b/a party C.On this basis Party C is claimed in Quantum Meruit having been conferred a benefit. No benefit exists which is a matter of proof. But having said that party B has never d/b/a party C. C is only there because attorney for party A knows he has deep pocket and that party A does not. How do I lose party C by motion before or after answer, or by Summary Judgement following discovery? My udnerstanding is that if I don't try to dismiss him now I waive that right. I also understand that because party A and party B have contract party A cannot claim under Quantum Meruit but has anyway. Clear enough? Please advise.
Expert:  lwpat replied 8 years ago.

Not really since you still seem to be mixing and matching but I will try.

 

Party A has sued party B in Federal court for payment of work that was never performed and has third partied C in claiming party C received the benefit of the alleged work.

 

Since there is no Federal question then there has to be diversity and the amount has to be over 75,000. I assume that both of those are present.

 

Party B answers claiming the work was not performed. This is a pure contract question.

 

Party C answers denying the claim they received any benefit or that they were never a third party beneficiary of the contract and then files for summary judgment after discovery.

Customer: replied 8 years ago.
party B has not d/b/a Party C. They are completely separate and distinct corporations and we can prove that. Still party C is named under threory of Quantum Meruit but had no participation in either the contract that gives rise to cause of action or any of the alleged benefit conferred. How do I get party C off the suit? Motion or answer to complaint? And what proof other than affidavit and perhaps corporate records, filings, tax returns, if any? Once Party C is gone so is their case for all intents and purposes. If this is still not clear give me an idea of what would make it clear to you, please.
Expert:  lwpat replied 8 years ago.
You have to answer the complaint and then file a motion for summary judgment. In Federal court you need an attorney to do this for you.
lwpat and other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related Business Law Questions