Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples
Alleges: Claim 1 - Breach of Contract; Claim 2 - Indemnification; Claim 3 - Conversion; Claim 4 - Fraud; Claim 5 - Intentional Infliction of Emotional and Mental Distress; Claim 6 - Elder Abuse; Claim 7 - Declaratory Relief
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Elder Financial Abuse; Second Claim for Relief - Fraud; Third Claim for Relief - Broker Liability; Fourth Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract; Fifth Claim for Relief - Declaratory Judgment
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Securities Fraud; Second Claim for Relief - Financial Elder Abuse; Third Claim for Relief - Unjust Enrichment
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - First Count - Realtor Negligence - Second Count - Elder Abuse; Second Claim for Relief - Negligence; Third Claim for Relief - First Count - Breach of Contract - Second Count - Negligence - Third Count - Fraud - Fourth Count - Elder Abuse
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract; Second Claim for Relief - Assumpsit; Third Claim for Relief - Fraud; Fourth Claim for Relief - Financial Abuse of a Vulnerable Person; Fifth Claim for Relief - Attorney Fees
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse - Count I - Against Ohio National Financial Services, Inc. (Ohio National) - Count II - Against NYLIFE Securities LLC (NYLIFE) - Count III - Against New York Life Insurance and Annuity Company (NYLIAC) - Count IV - Against New York Life Investment Management LLC (NYLIM); Second Claim for Relief - Common Law Fraud - Count I - Against Ohio National - Count II - Against NYLIFE; Third Claim for Relief - Negligence - Against NYLIM; Fourth Claim for Relief - Conversion - Against OnPoint Community Credit Union (OnPoint); Fifth Claim for Relief - Negligence - Against OnPoint
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse - Count I - Against Colleen Averill (Averill) - Count II - Against O.N. Equity Sales Company (ONESCO) - Count III - Against New York Life Insurance Company (NYLIC); Second Claim for Relief - Common Law Fraud - Count I - Against Averill - Count II - Against ONESCO; Third Claim for Relief - Conversion - Count I - Against Averill - Count II - Against ONESCO - Count III - Against NYLIC; ourth Claim for Relief - Negligence - Count I - Against ONESCO - Count II - Against NYLIC; Fifth Claim for Relief - Securities Fraud - Count I - Against Averill - Count II - Against ONESCO
Requests Court grant motion because: plaintiff fails to state claim for which relief can be granted; broker-dealer cannot be held liable under any theory for elder abuse
Requests Court deny motion because: elder abuse liability applies to person(s) through which entities operate; plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to support permitter or assister of financial abuse claim
Affirms: First Defense - Failure to State a Claim; Second Defense - Failure to Mitigate; Third Defense - Contributory Negligence; Fourth Defense - Statutes of Limitations; Fifth Defense - Negligence; Sixth Defense - Estoppel; Seventh Defense - Doctrine of Waiver; Eighth Defense - Proximate Cause; Ninth Defense - Superseding Negligence; Tenth Defense - Claim Barred; Eleventh Defense - Doctrine of Laches; Twelfth Defense - Assumption of Risk; Thirteenth Defense - Personal Jurisdiction; Reservation of Right to Amend
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse - Count 1 - Against Sharon Bankofier, Duane Bankofier and Oregon Realty - Count 2 - Against Oregon Realty, Chicago Title and Equity Advantage; Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Third Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fourth Claim for Relief - Negligence; Fifth Claim for Relief - Unlawful Trade Practices; Sixth Claim for Relief - Fraud; Seventh Claim for Realty - Sales of Unregistered Securities; Eighth Claim for Relief - Securities Fraud; Ninth Claim for Relief - Sale of Securities by Unlicensed Broker-Dealer or Salesperson
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Violation of Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act - Count 1 - Against Sharon Bankofier, Duane Bankofier and Oregon Realty - Count 2 - Against Oregon Realty, Chicago Title and Equity Advantage; Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Third Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fourth Claim for Relief - Negligence; Fifth Claim for Relief - Unlawful Trade Practices; Sixth Claim for Relief - Fraud; Seventh Claim for Relief - Sales of Unregistered Securities; Eighth Claim for Relief - Securities Fraud; Ninth Claim for Relief - Sale of Securities by Unlicensed Broker-Dealer or Salesperson
Requests Court dismiss complaint with prejudice and without opportunity to amend because: plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state viable claim for relief; claims are indefinite and uncertain
Requests Court deny motions because: harmed individual has a right to trial by jury; incorporation of definitions does not suggest legislature intended bench trials; legislative history supports trial by jury
Requests Court grant motions without the need for briefing or argument because a number of equivalent motions in liminepresented in another case were granted
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Second Claim for Relief - Fraud; Third Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse; Fourth Claim for Relief - Attorney Fees
Alleges: Violations of Elderly Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Elder Financial Abuse; Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Violation of Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act; Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract; Third Claim for Relief - Fraud
Recommends Court impose maximum consecutive sentence to protect public and vulnerable individuals (2010)
Requests Court grant motion because: each plaintiff asserts a single claim for relief; each claim does not provide any plaintiff with right to trial by jury; statute directs court to make damages determinations; neither statutes nor Oregon Constitution support plaintiffs' requests for jury trials
Requests Court grant motion because: buyers had a duty to investigate sellers' representations; plaintiffs had control over their investment; defendants did not take or appropriate plaintiffs' money or property; plaintiffs failed to make pre-litigation demand
Recommends Court support motion because: defendant was not in contempt; defendant's attorney lacked authority to bind client to a non-consensual stipulated agreement; prerequisite procedures for entering order based on non-appearance were not followed; violation was neither willful nor with bad intent; basis for contempt issue was unsigned stipulated order which included a patently false statement