Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
John W. Boyd, Jr. v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 20, 2017No. 15-CV-0692 & 15-CV-1043Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcLeese, Associate Judge
Although I agree with the court’s decision to vacate the dismissal of Mr. Boyd’s claim of unjust enrichment, I would also vacate the dismissal of Mr. Boyd’s other claims. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.
As the court notes, a motion to dismiss must be denied as long as the complaint “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Poola v. Howard Univ., 147 A.3d 267, 276 (D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If a complaint’s factual allegations are sufficient, the case must not be dismissed even if the court doubts that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.” Id.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wright v. Howard UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Vereen v. ClayborneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Daniel Logan v. LaSalle Bank National AssociationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Lamajak, Inc. v. Frazin, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2007
- INDIRA POOLA v. HOWARD UNIVERSITYDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.