once the claim as to the security deposit was dismissed, Plaintiffs attorney fees became the only remaining basis for the statutory ascertainable loss requirement. Earlier in the action, Plaintiff had alleged that Home (and FCO, by implication) “unlawfully withheld Plaintiffs security deposit,” [Jarzyna I, 763 F,Supp.2d at 752], and that Plaintiff “was forced to retain counsel to resist FCO’s collection efforts.” Id. at 749. The Grimes court, distinguishing Jarzyna I, recognized that the security deposit claim “alleged a specific loss of money,” and therefore satisfied the ascertainable loss requirement. Grimes, 105 A.3d at 1194. However, the Court, by its recent memorandum opinion and order, dismissed the security deposit claim from the case. See [Jarzyna II, 114 F.Supp.3d at 277] (<HOLDING>). At the present time, the only alleged
holding that defendant obtained no identifiable asset and therefore the underlying settlement payment cannot represent the restoration to the plaintiffs of some amount the defendant had improperly taken and withheld holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court holding that a trustees interest in letter of credit proceeds acting as a security deposit is property of the estate holding that plaintiffs security deposit was not improperly withheld when home applied the deposit amount to rent in arrears holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement