Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bruce Weed, et al v. Ally Financial Inc

June 28, 2012

BRUCE WEED, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ALLY FINANCIAL INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Tucker, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

June ____, 2012

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 33), Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion (Doc. 34) and Defendant's Response thereto (Doc. 37). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied it in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND *fn1

On April 27, 2011, Plaintiffs Bruce Weed, Michael Weed, Scott Weed, Weed Chevrolet

Company, Inc. and Weed Properties, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs") initiated this breach of contract and tort action against Defendant Ally Financial, Inc. (f/k/a GMAC Inc.) (hereinafter "GMAC") for allegedly engaging in bad faith conduct by targeting automobile dealerships for termination, foreclosure, and liquidation in violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code and Pennsylvania common law. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant extorted payments from targeted dealerships, including their own, under the mistaken but reasonable belief that if they acceded to GMAC's demands, GMAC would continue to provide financing essential for them to stay in business. Plaintiffs further assert that Defendant was aware that it intended to terminate the dealerships' financing despite their compliance with Defendant's demands, but failed to disclose such information to the dealers.

The original Complaint contained four counts including breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; tortious interference with contractual relations; fraud; and negligent misrepresentation. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 3, 2011. By Order dated August 26, 2011, this Court granted in part GMAC's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation and denied the motion in all other respects. On September 15, 2011, Defendant filed an Answer and asserted the following Affirmative Defenses:

1. Defendant's allegations in response to the Complaint, supra , are reaverred as fully as though set forth at length herein.

2. Count II and III violate Pennsylvania's gist of the action doctrine.

3. Counts II and II are time-barred by the running of the two-year statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for these torts.

4. The implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing does not apply to the lender/borrower relationship in this case.

5. Punitive damages may not be obtained in this case.

6. The claims for humiliation, embarrassment, emotional pain and anguish and any other non-economic damages may not be obtained in this case.

7. Plaintiffs signed contractual waivers and releases of any claims, defenses, causes of action or damages from any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.