Murray v. Ilg Technologies, LLC

378 F.Supp.3d 1227 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps were originally told that they had failed the bar exam to gain admission to the State Bar of Georgia only to find out months later that they had actually passed the exam. On September 6, 2016, the Georgia Board of Bar Examiners announced that ninety people who took the July 2015 and February 2016 Georgia bar exams-forty-five from each exam-were incorrectly assigned failing scores. Ps filed this putative class action against Ds on behalf of all ninety test takers. D is a technology company that creates custom software, and Mr. Misman is D's sole proprietor. D had a contract with the Office of Bar Admissions (OBA) to create and provide a computer program that would facilitate the entire bar admission process. Ps were not parties to the contract between D and the OBA. D 'promised to provide, and OBA promised to pay for, a complete, customized, turn-key system of enterprise for digitizing and electronically administering the entire bar admission process.' D's work product was used by the OBA and the Boards to calculate the scores and communicate the results of the July 2015 and February 2016 bar exams. All communications through the software came from the OBA and the Board of Bar Examiners; Ps were never contacted by D. Ps request relief for: (1) the cost of taking additional bar exams; (2) the cost of additional study materials; (3) loss of income; (4) injury to their property right in the employment of the legal profession; and (5) injury to their reputations. Ps allege that D committed acts of negligence. Ps also argue that D breached their contract with the OBA and that Ps were third-party beneficiaries of that contract. Ps claim that because they relied on the incorrect results to their detriment, D is liable to them for negligent misrepresentation. Ps allege that D breached their duties to exercise reasonable care in designing software free of unreasonable risks and to provide a merchantable product, meaning Ps are entitled to damages in strict products liability and for negligent design. Ps argue that the software's incorrect results constitute false publications and that Ds are thus liable for defamation. D moved for summary judgment.