and transact all and singular her affairs.” 2 . For ease of discussion, the defendants in the Sullivan Suit are referred to collectively as the "Malta Park Defendants." 3 . In the Sullivan Suit, the plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action: (1) fraud in the inducement, (2) strict liability pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2317.1, (3) failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care over the premises, (4) negligent hiring, (5) a Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice Act claim, (6) breach of state law as to the administration of drugs to residents, (7) breach of fiduciary duty, (8) mental anguish, (9) invasion of Ms. Sullivan’s right to privacy, (10) unjust enrichment, (11) fraud, (12) negligent misrepresentation, (13) conspiracy, (14) detrimental reliance, (15) c 380 (N.J.Super.Ct.1977) (<HOLDING>); Baird v. Dun and Bradstreet, 446 Pa. 266, 285
holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law holding that police report of witnesss statement was inadmissible because witness had not adopted report as accurate when matter was fresh in his memory holding that private detectives report imputing to plaintiffs an adulterous relationship constitutes libel as a matter of law holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings