Legal Opinion
Bronner v. Park Place Entertainment Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 28, 2001No. 00 CIV. 9459(CM)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
McMAHON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Peter Bronner seeks a judgment against defendant Park Place En tertainment Corporation (“Park Place”) declaring that an oral Commission Agreement entered into between them is valid and binding. Defendant moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Defendant contends that the Agreement is barred by the Statute of Frauds, and that its terms are so vague and uncertain as to render them unenforceable.
For the reasons…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking UnlimitedSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Freedman v. Chemical Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Anostario v. VicinanzoNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re Sunedison, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Intertex Trading Corp. v. Ixtaccihuatl S.A. De CVDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- UHAR & COMPANY, INC. v. JacobDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Weiss v. Macy's Retail Holdings Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Phoenix Asset Group, LLC v. URS Solutions LLCDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.