On July 5, 2024, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Multiplier Inc. v. Moreno, 2024 NY Slip Op 32290(U), dismissing an unjust enrichment claim because of the lack of a sufficiently close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, explaining:
The theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties.
To the extent Harness seeks to recover from Moreno for her alleged usurpation of Harness’ proprietary information, this claim is precluded as to her by the existence of the Agreement. Insofar as Harness seeks to recover from Moreno based on her alleged conduct in joining Harness’ competitor, equity need not intercede as Harness alleges to have received benefits of Moreno’s employment.
Defendants argue that the unjust enrichment claim fails as against Carta because there are no allegations that Harness relied on Carta or that Carta did anything more than hire Moreno. Defendants also argue that the relationship between Carta and Harness is too attenuated.
Plaintiff cannot succeed on an unjust enrichment claim unless it has a sufficiently close relationship with the other party. Although the plaintiff is not required to allege privity, it has to assert a connection between the parties that was not too attenuated. Plaintiff need not allege reliance or inducement to plead sufficiently close relationship with defendant.
Here, Harness has not alleged a relationship with Carta other than that of competitor, therefore, a claim for unjust enrichment is too attenuated and will not lie. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed as against both defendants.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).