TRIVEDI et al v. CHANDAN et al, No. 2:2022cv00548 - Document 36 (E.D. Pa. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS DILIP C. CHANDAN, CHAITANYA D. CHANDAN, CHIRAG D. CHANDAN, AND VIJAY C. CHANDAN IS GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DE FENDANTS ARE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AS TO PLAINTIFFS BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS PREMISED ON THE REIMBURSEMENT AND LOAN AGREEMENTS (COUNT I), AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM (COUNT IV ). DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED AS TO PLAINTIFFS BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM PREMISED ON THE EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (COUNT I), UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM (COUNT II), PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM (COUNT III), AND EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING CLAIM (COUNT V). THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER BY MAY 2, 2024. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 4/11/24. 4/12/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NILKANTH D. TRIVEDI, et al. Plaintiffs v. DILIP C. CHANDAN, et al. Defendants : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-0548 ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of April 2024, upon consideration of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF 31), Plaintiffs’ response in opposition, (ECF 32), Defendants’ reply, (ECF 33), Plaintiffs’ sur-reply, (ECF 34), and the allegations in the second amended complaint, (ECF 29), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims asserted against Individual Defendants Dilip C. Chandan, Chaitanya D. Chandan, Chirag D. Chandan, and Vijay C. Chandan is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims premised on the Reimbursement and Loan Agreements (Count I), and fraudulent misrepresentation claim (Count IV); and 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim premised on the Exclusive Distribution Agreement (Count I), unjust enrichment claim (Count II), promissory estoppel claim (Count III), and equitable accounting claim (Count V). It is further ORDERED that the remaining Defendants shall file an answer by May 2, 2024. BY THE COURT: /s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO Judge, United States District Court
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
