District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr


Read Full- Text Decision

Energy service company Ambit purports to help customers budget their energy bills. It sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint alleging they misled customers about the cost of its services and did not disclose hidden fees. Ambit argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint should be dismissed on grounds that the New York and Maryland Public Service Commissions had primary jurisdiction. The court denied Ambit dismissal. Noting that resolution of plaintiffs’ claim that Ambit charged more than the applicable rate for natural gas or electricity they used would not compromise the regulation of natural gas or electricity, the court concluded that the parties’ billing dispute did not implicate policy considerations justifying application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In addition to finding plaintiffs sufficiently stated claims under New York General Business Law §349-d(3)and §13-303 of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act, district court rejected Ambit’s assertion that plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed for failure to meet FRCP 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards, for failure to assert which state law applied, and for failure to state a plausible claim for relief on behalf of consumers outside New York and Maryland.