Jatin Investments LLC v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 3:18-cv-117-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180731658
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . AT&T's motion to dismiss, N o 5, is partly granted and partly denied without prejudice. Everyone agrees that Jatin's claims accrued in March 2013, more than five years before he filed this case. Jatin's fraud claim is therefore untimely and dismissed with prejudice. The statute of limitations may not resolve Jatin's contract claim, though. Was AT&T's promise to fix its cutover error, combined with its later admission that it didn't, a writt
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . AT&T's motion to dismiss, N o 5, is partly granted and partly denied without prejudice. Everyone agrees that Jatin's claims accrued in March 2013, more than five years before he filed this case. Jatin's fraud claim is therefore untimely and dismissed with prejudice. The statute of limitations may not resolve Jatin's contract claim, though. Was AT&T's promise to fix its cutover error, combined with its later admission that it didn't, a writte..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
AT&T's motion to dismiss, No 5, is partly granted and partly denied without prejudice. Everyone agrees that Jatin's claims accrued in March 2013, more than five years before he filed this case. Jatin's fraud claim is therefore untimely and dismissed with prejudice. The statute of limitations may not resolve Jatin's contract claim, though. Was AT&T's promise to fix its cutover error, combined with its later admission that it didn't, a written acknowledgement of default? ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-56-111(b). The pleaded facts are, as AT&T argues, too murky for the Court to decide. But they are sufficient to allow for a clarifying amendment. Amended complaint due by 24 August 2018.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
