![]() ![]() As explained below, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of Lehman’s three claims. Rather, this motion asks threshold legal questions regarding the sufficiency of Lehman’s allegations, the character of the evidence he offers in support of those allegations, and the legal viability of certain claims he bases upon those allegations. Although no such promise was ever made, that is not particular ly relevant for purposes of this motion. Upon the strength of that alleged promise, Lehman states claim s for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and civil conspiracy. ![]() (“LCSi”) until such time as he chose to retire. Plaintiff Paul Lehman’s action is wholly dependent upon his allegation that defendants promised him employment with Lehman Construction Services, Inc. Lehman’s Conspiracy Claim Fails for Want of an Underlying Tort. The Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Lehman’s Fraud Claim. The Gist-of-the-Action Doctrine Bars Lehman’s Fraud Claim. ![]() Lehman Cannot Overcome the Presumption of At-Will Employment. The SAA’s Integration Clause Defeats Lehman’s Breach of Contract Claim. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |