Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Does an employer have any sort of ownership interest in its employees' tweets or Twitter following? This very current social-media question may be tested in a lawsuit originally filed last July in federal court in California by PhoneDog, a South Carolina-based company that reviews mobile phones and services online, against former employee Noah Kravitz. An amended complaint in the case, filed on November 29, 2011, has attracted considerable media attention.

When Kravitz worked for PhoneDog as a product reviewer and video blogger from 2006 to 2010, he tweeted under the handle @PhoneDog_Noah and attracted some 17,000 followers for his comments and opinions on Twitter. When he left the company, he continued tweeting under the name @NoahKravitz. But he didn't create a new account with that name; instead, he kept the account (with all its followers) and just changed the Twitter handle to @NoahKravitz. Eight months later, PhoneDog sued Kravitz, alleging that his continued use of the account and his tweeting to his followers constitute a misappropriation of PhoneDog's trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective economic relationships, and conversion. Phone Dog said that it had suffered loss of advertising revenue as a result and that Kravitz "was unjustly enriched by obtaining the business of PhoneDog's Followers."

PhoneDog essentially claims ownership rights due to the fact that it directs its employees to maintain Twitter accounts and instructs them to tweet links to PhoneDog's website, thus increasing PhoneDog's page views and generating advertising revenue for PhoneDog. PhoneDog said in the complaint that since Kravitz now works for TechnoBuffalo, a competitor of PhoneDog, he is exploiting PhoneDog's confidential information on behalf of a competitor. PhoneDog is seeking $340,000 in damages -- $2.50 per month per Twitter follower for eight months. Although PhoneDog said in the complaint that "industry standards" peg the value of a Twitter follower at $2.50 per month, the company did not give a source for that estimate. Nor did PhoneDog attempt to distinguish between people who followed Kravitz because of his connection to PhoneDog and those followers who are merely friends of his or enjoy his commentary.

In my view, this would be a solid case if Kravitz was bound by a non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. The allegations are essentially that Kravitz took a list of 17,000 PhoneDog followers and is now soliciting business from them on behalf of a new company. Such conduct would normally violate a standard non-solicitation agreement. In the absence of a noncompete, the case is weaker but raises some interesting issues. It's not quite the same as the typical case involving theft of customer lists because, unlike in most of those cases, Twitter followers' identities are not private. Kravitz didn't need to assume control over the Twitter account in order to solicit business from those followers; doing so just made things easier for him. At a minimum, I think the intentional interference claim will stick. Kravitz should have started a new Twitter account and invited people to follow him there, not simply changed the name on the account. That's risky business.

In a dispute between two Virginia lawyers, a U.S. District Judge has rejected attorney Cynthia Smith's claim that another attorney, Timothy Purcell, interfered with her contract with a client and caused her to suffer nearly $4 million in financial losses.

Smith had been representing a Northern Virginia family, the Wieses, in a dispute with their neighbors. Eventually, the Wieses became dissatisfied with her representation and hired Purcell in her place. Smith sought her full $30,000 fee from the Wieses but ended up settling the fee dispute with them for $5,000. She and the Wieses signed a settlement agreement in 2009 that provided for a full release of all claims. Two years later, Smith sued Purcell over his role in representing the Wiese family, alleging that Purcell tortiously interfered with her right to receive the full payment from the client. She said that Purcell at one point promised her that he would ensure that she would be "paid in full" by the Wieses and that he reneged on this promise. She also claimed that she signed the settlement agreement under duress in that her "decision to trust God" led to a series of financial losses.

U.S. District Judge James Cacheris, in a December 9, 2011, ruling, rejected all of Smith's claims and dismissed the complaint. He turned down her motion for leave to amend her complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile because the facts before him did not state a cause of action. Judge Cacheris wrote that Smith's claims were barred by the release language in the settlement agreement that she signed in 2009 with the Wieses. In his ruling, the judge pointed out that the agreement extinguishes all claims that Smith might have not only with the Wieses but also with their attorneys. Judge Cacheris ruled further that Smith's financial distress at the time did not amount to legal "duress" that permitted her to avoid the provisions of the settlement agreement.

"There are no facts alleging that Defendant or the Wiese family exerted force, intimidation, or threats related to the offer to settle, and, in fact, there is evidence that they also offered to bring the dispute to mediation," the judge wrote. "That Plaintiff informed Defendant of her difficult financial position does not convert the offers to mediate and settle into coercion."

Judge Cacheris also ruled that even if it were not for the settlement agreement, Smith could have no claim against Purcell for interfering with her agreement with the Wieses. Purcell was their attorney and thus their agent, he pointed out - and Virginia law does not allow a claim for tortious interference by an agent with his principal's contract, since for this purpose the agent and the principal are one and the same entity. One cannot tortiously interfere with one's own contract. "Despite being an attorney, Plaintiff has remarkably missed the fact that the attorney-client relationship is one of agency," the judge wrote.

A Swedish law firm has failed in its effort to sue a director of a former client for "misrepresentation" in Virginia federal court after the court ruled the claim was barred by Virginia's two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence claims. The law firm had conceded that it would be unable to maintain a cause of action for fraud under the laws of Virginia, and the court opted to analyze the viability of the claim as a negligence action.

The law firm, Andersson Gustafsson Advokatbyra KB, sued eSCRUB Systems, Inc., a Virginia company, and three people associated with the company, claiming that eSCRUB had failed to pay the firm's legal bills after it hired the law firm in 2007 to help it resolve a dispute. The law firm alleged that John Packard, a former director of eSCRUB, committed fraud in that he breached a "continuing obligation to notify Andersson of the risks of non-payment it ran in performing services for eSCRUB." The allegation was essentially that Packard was part of a scheme to induce the law firm to provide legal services to eSCRUB with the full knowledge that the company would never pay the firm's legal fees.

In Virginia, negligence claims carry a two-year statute of limitations. Virginia follows the general rule that the event that starts the limitations clock ticking is the negligent act itself. There is no "discovery exception" that starts the clock at a later date, such as the date the plaintiff actually discovers that the alleged negligence occurred or that he has been damaged. Statutes of limitation can expire before a potential plaintiff even learns of the grounds for a lawsuit.

The judge found that the alleged injury occurred in December 2007, when the law firm's invoices first came due and eSCRUB refused to pay. The law firm contended that the injury occurred even earlier, in November 2007, when the law firm first started working for eSCRUB. The judge said that an alternative date would be May 8, 2008, when the law firm terminated its services to eSCRUB. But any of those dates are more than two years before the lawsuit was filed on June 8, 2010, so the claim was deemed time-barred and the court entered summary judgment for the defendant.

In a case that turns on a law firm's ethical obligations to avoid conflicts of interest, a large D.C. law firm has once again been procedurally rebuffed in its effort to have a federal judge in the District of Columbia declare that it has not violated any ethics rules in a high-profile environmental case.

Patton Boggs, a major D.C. firm, represents various parties in Ecuador that are involved in high-stakes environmental litigation against Chevron. A lobbying subsidiary of Patton Boggs, the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, has done work on behalf of Chevron on similar issues. Gibson Dunn, the law firm representing Chevron, is taking the position that Patton Boggs has a conflict of interest and has tried to have Patton Boggs removed from the case.

Patton Boggs moved in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory ruling that it does not have such a conflict. Last April, however, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy dismissed this case, finding that the courts that are actually hearing the environmental cases against Chevron are best equipped to handle that issue. Judge Kennedy also ruled that Patton Boggs could not amend its complaint to allege that Chevron and Gibson Dunn had tortiously interfered with its contract with the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and had engaged in a civil conspiracy, since Patton Boggs had not alleged facts suggesting that they had caused any actual breach of the contract.

Patton Boggs moved for reconsideration of the dismissal and sought leave to add new claims to its complaint. On July 8, 2011, however, Judge Kennedy denied this reconsideration motion as well. The judge restated his prior ruling that other courts, not his, were best situated to resolve the issue of whether Patton Boggs had a conflict of interest and that it would be prudent for him to abstain from deciding that issue.

In response to Patton Boggs' contention that he had applied the wrong standard for tortious interference, Judge Kennedy found that the law firm's new theory of tortious interference was not viable because at no point did the firm assert that it had suffered any pecuniary loss from the actions of Chevron or Gibson Dunn. "Damages are an essential element of any tortious interference claim," Judge Kennedy wrote.

Two owners of a Virginia restaurant breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation they managed by paying themselves exorbitant management fees and by making improper loans and distributions to themselves, a Fairfax County judge has found.

"Fiduciary duty" in this context generally refers to the duty of loyalty owed by officers, directors, and other employees to each other or to the corporation they work for. Fiduciary duties include things like acting at all times with the corporation's best interests in mind, refraining from usurping business opportunities for yourself, and refraining from actively competing with the company. In general, the law in Virginia and elsewhere holds that people in a position of trust vis-à-vis a closely held corporation must perform their duties without self-dealing or conflict of interest.

According to the opinion, the basic facts were as follows. As of 1993, Michael Magill, Thomas Dinsmore, and Raymond Clatworthy each owned 33 percent of the shares of DPR, Inc., a Virginia corporation that operated a restaurant. The restaurant's primary business was preparing buffet lunches for sightseeing school groups visiting the Washington, D.C., area. Magill, who lived in the D.C. area, set up Magill Enterprises, Ltd., which operated the restaurant as an independent contractor of DPR and charged it a management fee. The other two owners did not live in the D.C. area. DPR was organized as an S corporation.

The restaurant business was cyclical in that most of the groups visited in the springtime, and during the slower periods, the restaurant suffered a cash flow problem. Magill and Magill Enterprises became DPR's primary source of credit for its ordinary expenses. In 2006, both Dinsmore and Clatworthy took $17,000 in dividends out of the company in excess of the money that DPR had to distribute. Magill never received dividends for that year. In 2007, Dinsmore and Clatworthy directed Magill to issue dividend checks to each shareholder for $37,000. Since DPR did not have that much money to distribute, Dinsmore and Clatworthy directed DPR to forgive their loans in the amount of $17,000 each.

When Dinsmore and Clatworthy found in June 2007 that Magill had been running a separate side business of making box lunches out of the restaurant, they voted him out as a director of DPR. That month, they paid themselves management fees and other distributions. Then Magill, on the one side, and Dinsmore and Clatworthy, on the other, filed several lawsuits against each other in Virginia state court. Magill, in his capacity as a shareholder of DPR, filed a derivative suit against Dinsmore and Clatworthy, alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duty to the company by taking excessive management fees, by making loans and distributions to themselves, by reclassifying entries in DPR's books, and by other means.

On April 6, 2011, Judge Jane Marum Roush of the Fairfax County Circuit Court ruled in Magill's favor, entering judgment on DPR's behalf for $17,137 for the loans forgiven in May 2007, and for $9,812 in excessive management fees.

Dinsmore and Clatworthy, in turn, sued Magill for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims concerning Magill's box lunch business. The judge found that Magill had wrongfully converted company property by running this business but found that the plaintiffs had proved no monetary damages to the corporation as a result. Thus the court found for Magill on this claim as well.

Is Facebook violating New York privacy laws when it permits children to press the "like" button on the site to endorse advertisements without first receiving approval from their parents? That's the question posed by a lawsuit filed on May 3, 2011, in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y., by the father of a teenager there who is a member of the hugely popular social networking site. The case was brought as a class action on behalf of "all minors in New York whose names or likenesses were used by Facebook, Inc., for commercial purposes without the consent of the parents or guardians of said minors." Anyone over the age of 12 can sign up for a Facebook account.

When any Facebook user, including a teenager, "likes" an advertisement, that preference appears on the Facebook page for that ad, the lawsuit says. This in turn is considered a "click" on that ad and generates revenue for Facebook, since it receives revenue from advertisers based on the number of users that "like" the advertisement. Facebook's privacy settings don't permit any users to prevent their names and pictures from appearing on advertising pages that they have "liked." They can at any time withdraw their "like," but as long as it is in effect, it will be considered a "click" and thus a "commercial use," according to the complaint.

In order to sign up for Facebook, users, including those under age, agree to the following statement: "You can use your privacy settings to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. You give us permission to use your name and profile picture in connection with that content, subject to the limits you place." According to the complaint, however, "at no time does Facebook seek or obtain the consent of any parent or guardian of its minor users to use or sell the name and likeness of the child for commercial use by Facebook or third-party advertisers."

Thus, according to the complaint, Facebook is using minors' names and likenesses for "commercial and marketing purposes" without the consent of their parents or legal guardians. This, according to the complaint, violates New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51, which provide civil and criminal penalties for using minors' names or likenesses without such consent.

Creative lawyering, for sure. Who could have predicted that a kid expressing his fondness for a product could give rise to a class action? A Facebook spokesman has been quoted as saying, "We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously."

A highly sensational case filed recently against the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., may end up raising interesting legal questions about the responsibility of private schools to supervise the actions of their school psychologists. In the $10 million civil suit filed in D.C. Superior Court, Arthur Newmyer, father of a kindergarten student at Sidwell, alleges that Jack Huntington, while working as the school psychologist and counseling Newmyer's daughter, carried on a sexual affair with Newmyer's wife, Tara, a former associate attorney at Dickstein Shapiro LLP, a large Washington law firm. So far, at least three judges have recused themselves from the case, apparently due to their close ties to the prestigious institution.

Earlier this year, Huntington left the school. The lawsuit contends that he was fired after the school learned about sexually explicit e-mails that Huntington sent to Tara Newmyer from the school's computer system. According to the complaint, Huntington and Tara Newmyer arranged "play dates" for the girl so that they could meet and carry on their clandestine affair. The counseling sessions, the complaint says, occurred off school property.

A spokesman for Sidwell has said that the school will "vigorously defend" itself against allegations that he said were "completely without merit." The explosive allegations in the lawsuit filed by Arthur Newmyer, himself a Sidwell graduate who has been extremely active in supporting the school over the years, have become a major topic of discussion at the private school, whose students include President Obama's daughters Malia and Sasha.

Psychologists' ethics rules require them to put the needs of their clients first; in this case, that would be the kindergarten student. The ethics rules in Maryland and the District of Columbia, the relevant jurisdictions, prohibit a psychologist from having an affair with a parent of someone he is counseling.

So why sue the school? The complaint charges the school with "negligent supervision" -- claiming that the school had an obligation "to supervise the employees under its control in order to prevent them from harming students in its care." Thus, any emotional harm to Arthur Newmyer and to his daughter as a result of Huntington's actions could be legally placed at Sidwell's door. The complaint says that school officials knew that Huntington was counseling the girl, knew of the affair, and consented to the affair, continuing "to support his actions for nearly a year" until he left the school.

Expect the school to contest these allegations. Tara Newmyer's attorney has said that Huntington was not treating her daughter "in any professional capacity," and according to The Washington Post, the school sent a letter to parents asserting that it "does not believe that anyone it employed ever had a therapeutic relationship" with the girl. So this interesting and sad case will require some factual development before anyone can predict its end. Still, one has to wonder: if the situation described in the Complaint caused the young daughter so much "emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, [and] embarrassment," then is filing this high-profile lawsuit really the best thing for her?

When SolAVerde's attorney spoke to the media about his client's defamation claims against the Town of Front Royal and certain councilmen, he sounded pretty confident. The court, however, disagreed with his arguments and dismissed the Town from the lawsuit, finding it to be immune. The court also dismissed the defamation claims against the other defendants, but left the door open for SolAVerde, a Virginia solar energy company, to amend its claims against them.

The Complaint alleged that the defendants, in effect, accused the owners of SolAVerde of offering a bribe to public officials in connection with the bidding on a contract for a solar energy processing and production facility. According to plaintiff, a member of the Front Royal town council, whom they were unable to identify specifically, leaked a memorandum to the news media that raised the question of whether certain proposed monetary incentives were actually bribes. The plaintiffs sought $30 million in reputational damages.

However, in a May 26, 2011, opinion, Judge Paul Peatross Jr., sitting by designation in the Warren County court, dismissed the defamation claim. He found that the town was entitled to sovereign immunity because whatever the council members had done in connection with the bids and the possible contract, they were making a governmental decision. "The doctrine of sovereign immunity protects municipalities from tort liability arising out of the exercise of governmental functions," he wrote. Judge Peatross concluded that the acts alleged by the plaintiffs, including the alleged leak of the document, "amount to a governmental function by the Town of Front Royal acting in its legislative capacity regarding the consideration of solar power for the Town of Front Royal," and that the town is thus immune from defamation liability.

Regarding the defamation claims against the other defendants, the judge dismissed those too. Citing the Model Jury Instructions, he recited the elements of a defamation claim as "(1) a defendant made a statement of fact; (2) about the plaintiff; (3) that was heard or seen by someone other than the plaintiff; (4) which statement was false; and the defendant knew the statement was false or, believing it to be true, lacked reasonable grounds for such belief or acted negligently to ascertain the facts on which the statement was based." It was not necessary to get beyond the first element, as the court found no allegation of a factual assertion. The statement at issue was a legal question posed to the Town Attorney, not a statement of fact. As such, it was insufficient to state a proper defamation claim.

Kids these days. The use of fake IDs by teens is nothing new, but when that ID contains the name of a real person, and the imposter goes on to do naughty things while posing as someone else, the law of defamation can come into play. And if you're inclined to post a YouTube video of that identity thief engaged in acts of questionable moral character, you'd better conduct some due diligence to ensure you don't destroy someone's reputation. That's a lesson that Joe Francis, the entrepreneur behind the risqué "Girls Gone Wild" videos, may have just learned as a result of a $3 million default judgment entered against him earlier this month in New Jersey federal court.

In a complicated scenario typical of the Internet age, in 2008 Francis wanted to take advantage of that year's scandal involving New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and a prostitute named Ashley Alexandra Dupre. He offered Dupre $1 million to appear in a magazine spread and participate in a promotional tour for "Girls Gone Wild," but withdrew his offer when he found that he already had useful footage of Dupre from five years before, when she was 17 years old.

After Francis used the footage, Dupre sued him, claiming that she was underage and did not understand the release she had signed. However, Francis was able to come up with a video of Dupre providing consent to appear in "Girls Gone Wild," stating that she was 18, and showing the driver's license of another woman who was of legal age. Dupre then dropped her suit against Francis.

But Francis's legal troubles weren't over. The other woman whose driver's license was held aloft by Dupre was Amber Arpaio, who was in no way involved in "Girls Gone Wild." Arpaio sued Francis, Dupre, and the companies that produce the DVDs for defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of her name, and conspiracy.

The judge wrote that a person is liable for defamation if he makes a statement regarding a private person (as opposed to a public figure) with knowledge that the statement is false, reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, or negligence by failing to determine the truth or falsity of the statement. He noted that Arpaio had alleged that the defendants produced a video in which Dupre represents herself as Arpaio, and thus by implication states that Arpaio is affiliated with the "Girls Gone Wild" franchise, a false statement. Arpaio also alleged that the defendants knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. The court therefore found it appropriate to enter a default judgment.

As for arriving at the $3 million figure, the judge referred to Arpaio's "distress from being mistaken as somehow affiliated with Dupre or 'Girls Gone Wild' " as well as her fear that she might lose job opportunities because a prospective employer would search for her name on the Internet and find her ID being brandished by Dupre. He also noted that if she were to have children, they too might suffer emotional damage from being exposed to the material. "Given the unique nature of the Internet," the plaintiff's Internet expert wrote, "this branding is for life."

Statements made by litigants and their attorneys in judicial proceedings cannot form the basis for a defamation action because they are protected by an absolute privilege. But what if an attorney, desirous of increased media exposure, takes copies of what might otherwise be considered slanderous statements and forwards them to the media? Do statements made in judicial proceedings lose their privileged status when republished to third parties? The answer, according to Norfolk judge Charles E. Poston, is that it depends on whether the attorney acted with malice.

In D'Alfio v. Theuer, a sea captain sued a lawyer who had filed at least one lawsuit against him on behalf of a client claiming employment discrimination. The lawsuit, the sea captain contended, contained numerous false and defamatory allegations, such as that the captain had ordered a seaman on his ship to be handcuffed in retaliation for speaking to a newspaper reporter and that he had threatened to put him in a straightjacket. What the captain found particularly troublesome, however, was that the seaman's lawyer faxed a copy of the lawsuit to the media. He sued the lawyer for defamation.

The lawyer filed a "demurrer" (essentially a motion to dismiss the complaint) on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by absolute or qualified privilege. Judge Poston overruled the demurrer and permitted the lawsuit to proceed.

An absolute privilege provides complete immunity from liability, even if the communication is made with malice and knowledge of falsity. Lindeman v. Lesnick, 268 Va. 532, 537 (2004). A qualified privilege, on the other hand, provides communications a limited privilege that can be defeated upon a showing of malice by clear and convincing evidence. Penick v. Ratcliffe, 149 Va. 618, 636 (1927). The court quickly disposed of the absolute-privilege argument, because the statements, while originally made in the course of a judicial proceeding, had been republished to the media, and it was that republication that formed the basis of the complaint's allegations.

The court found, however, that republication of pleadings does enjoy qualified protection, provided that the pleadings were public records at time they were sent to the media and that they were either copied verbatim, or extracted or summarized in a fair and accurate manner. The court noted Virginia Supreme Court precedent which held that "the publication of public records to which everyone has a right of access is privileged." The question thus became whether the attorney who forwarded the statements to the press did so maliciously.

A plaintiff seeking to overcome a qualified privilege must demonstrate that the defendant acted with actual malice at the time of publication, or with a "sinister or corrupt motive such as hatred, revenge, personal spite, ill will, or desire to injure the plaintiff," or that the defendant acted "with such gross indifference and recklessness as to amount to a wanton or willful disregard of the rights of the plaintiff." Preston v. Land, 220 Va. 118, 120-21 (1979). Because the plaintiff's complaint contained numerous allegations of malice, and because the question of whether a defendant acted with malice sufficient to overcome a privilege is a question of fact to be decided by the jury, the court overruled the demurrer and permitted the action to go forward.

Too often, disgruntled departing employees will abuse their employer's computer system on their way out, snooping into coworkers' email accounts, erasing important files, downloading trade secrets or other confidential commercial information, or intentionally infecting computers with viruses. In recent years, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has become an important weapon in an employer's arsenal for combating such computer crimes. Civil remedies are available under the CFAA for damage to any "protected computer," which includes any "computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication." However, a Virginia court recently clarified that the CFAA will not provide a remedy absent an actual "loss" as defined by the statute.

In Global Policy Partners, LLC, v. Yessin, a plaintiff brought claims against her husband and business partner under the CFAA and the Stored Communications Act (SCA), claiming that he had accessed her work email account in order to review her confidential communications with her divorce lawyer. The court rejected the husband's initial attempts to dismiss the case on the ground that his access to his wife's email was authorized in that he was a co-manager of the couple's business. The court reasoned that because there was no legitimate business reason for the snooping, the access was unauthorized. At the summary judgment stage, however, the court granted summary judgment in his favor because the wife did not introduce sufficient evidence to show she had incurred a $5,000 "loss."

To prevail on a claim brought under the CFAA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged violation "caused ... loss ... aggregating at least $5,000 in value." 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(c)(4)(A)(i). The CFAA specifically defines four categories of potential loss: "[i] the cost of responding to an offense, [ii] [costs of] conducting a damage assessment, and [iii] [costs of] restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and [iv] any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of the interruption of service." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11). According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, this list "plainly contemplates ... costs incurred as part of the response to a CFAA violation, including the investigation of an offense." A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 646 (4th Cir. 2009).

Just because an unauthorized person reads an e-mail, however, does not necessarily mean that he is liable under the CFAA. In order to recover damages under the CFAA, a plaintiff must establish three main facts: (1) A violation of the plaintiff's computer system; (2) costs incurred by the plaintiff due to the violation, and (3) those costs must aggregate to $5,000 or more. 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The court indicated that it would view critically a plaintiff's post hoc claims that a violation "caused" costs to be incurred simply because money was spent subsequent to the violations. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11) only compensates for "reasonable" costs, so a plaintiff must establish, not only that the defendant's violation caused the plaintiff to suffer costs but that those costs were a reasonably foreseeable result of the violation. The court held that even if a defendant breaks into a plaintiff's computer system and reads email without authority, that would not give the plaintiff a blank check to perform system updates that were not reasonably necessary to restore and re-secure the system.

If a victim of computer fraud can establish a loss, however, the CFAA offers a potentially powerful deterrent in the form of a federal cause of action.

Business litigation often involves allegations that a competitor engaged in unfair competition or business tactics designed to injure the plaintiff's business. Such cases will only be successful, however, if the defendant business has crossed the line between legitimate competitive activity and tortious conduct. In a new Fourth Circuit opinion written by Judge Mark S. Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of BMW, explaining that not all aggressive competition will be deemed unfair or unlawful; a competitor pursuing its legitimate business interests will often be permitted to do so without incurring liability.

BCD, LLC v. BMW Mfg. Co. involved a dispute over a project to build a new school of engineering on the Clemson University campus. The plaintiff, Rosen (and the companies controlled by him) and BMW were each involved in different aspects of the construction project. Rosen had entered into a tentative agreement with Clemson in 2002, which outlined the responsibilities each would each have in the construction of a wind tunnel. The agreement was not binding, however, because there remained certain unresolved details, and the written agreement specifically allowed either party to withdraw from the project if they could not agree as to those unresolved details. The agreement was thus in the nature of an "agreement to agree" rather than a final, binding contract.

Clemson and BMW, on the other hand, had entered into a final agreement to which each party was bound, and BMW had received a $25 million grant from the state for the project. As preparation for the construction of the school was getting underway, Rosen declared that he wanted the new school to be built on land he owned, but BMW objected because it wanted to keep the state-funded school separate from the privately-funded wind tunnel. As time wore on, little to no progress was made on the construction of the wind tunnel, and Clemson and Rosen were still unable to come to an agreement on the unresolved details from the 2002 agreement. Finally, Rosen and Clemson signed a new agreement in 2003 that negated the 2002 agreement, resolved all of the details, and included a sale of Rosen's land to Clemson so the school could be built on land that was now publicly-owned. Rosen did not want to cede control over the property, and felt that BMW coerced Clemson into stalling on the wind tunnel project so BMW could exert control over Rosen's property. He thus sued BMW for tortious interference with a contract, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, and civil conspiracy.

The court affirmed summary judgment for BMW on all counts. In doing so, the court explained the legal elements of each of Rosen's tort claims and explained clearly why the conduct complained of did not satisfy these requirements. (The case was decided under South Carolina law, which is substantially similar to Virginia law in this area).

Dealing first with the tortious interference allegation, the court laid out the elements as: "(1) the existence of the contract; (2) the other party's knowledge of the contract; (3) the other party's intentional procurement of a breach of the contract; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) resulting damage." The court rejected Rosen's claim because no enforceable contract existed between Rosen and Clemson at the time of the alleged interference. The court noted that because either party could opt out of the 2002 agreement, it was not a binding contract, and without a binding contract, there can be no tortious interference.

The court next tackled the claim of interference with prospective contractual relations. The elements for this tort are: "(1) intentionally interfer[ing] with the plaintiff's potential contractual relations; (2) for an improper purpose or by improper methods; (3) causing injury to the plaintiff." The court easily affirmed summary judgment on this count because Rosen had offered no evidence that BMW had utilized improper methods or had taken any action for an improper purpose. The court observed that BMW was merely attempting to further its own business interests by seeking understandably to exercise control over a project in which it was intimately involved. There was no evidence, for example, that BMW had used "violence, threats, bribery, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or duress" in the course of affecting Rosen's relationship with Clemson.

Regarding the conspiracy claim, the court set forth the elements as "(1) a combination of two or more persons, (2) for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, (3) which causes the plaintiff special damage." The court found that Rosen had failed to meet his burden to produce evidence that BMW's actions were taken for the purpose of causing injury to Rosen. Rather, it appeared from the evidence that BMW was merely acting to protect the interests all competitors in a capitalistic economy share: to succeed in business, which often comes at the cost of the competitor.

The court affirmed judgment in BMW's favor, finding insufficient evidence to hold BMW liable on any of Rosen's business-tort theories. The court reasoned that to punish BMW for pursuing its legitimate business interests would be to indict our entire economic system.

Virginia employment lawyers who represent plaintiffs are often looking for creative legal theories to help their clients receive justice. Employees seeking redress for perceived wrongful termination face a steep hurdle in the employment-at-will doctrine, under which a private employer, subject to certain exceptions, is free to discharge its employees at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, without incurring civil liability. While it is usually the corporate employer who gets cast in the role of defendant, plaintiffs' lawyers have occasionally tried to impose liability on the individual manager who terminated or discriminated against the employee, usually without much success. A recent decision from the Eastern District of Virginia's Richmond Division, however, opens the door to possible claims of "tortious interference" against the individual bad actor.

Williams v. Autozone Stores, Inc. is a sexual harassment case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment of employees where the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a "hostile work environment," or where the harassing conduct results in a tangible change in an employee's employment status or benefits (such as getting fired). Williams, a former employee of Autozone, claimed that her manager, Willie Pugh, touched her inappropriately and made sexually-charged comments toward her. After asking Pugh to stop, Williams alleges that he wrote her up for nonexistent problems and that she was consequently transferred to a different store and eventually fired. Williams sued Autozone for alleged discrimination, but also sued Pugh himself on the theory that he tortiously interfered with her employment contract with Autozone. Autozone moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that Pugh was an agent of the company and that a company cannot interfere with its own contracts, but Judge Spencer allowed the claim to go forward.

Pugh pointed out that claims for tortious interference with contract require the existence of three separate parties: the two parties to the contract, and a third party who induces one of the two contracting parties to breach the agreement. As an employee of the company, he argued, he and Autozone were the same entity, negating the possibility of a third party. Pugh also pointed out that Williams acknowledged in her complaint that Pugh was an employee acting within the scope of his employment with Autozone.

Judge Spencer responded by noting that the plaintiff's admission in her pleadings that Pugh was an agent of Autozone did not preclude a finding that Pugh acted outside the scope of his employment. A party may plead inconsistent facts, the court held, provided they relate to different claims. Turning to the question of whether Pugh's actions were necessarily the actions of Autozone, the court found that a tortious interference claim could very well be viable even when the interfering party is an employee of one of the contracting parties. The employee would be acting as a third party if his actions were taken outside the scope of his employment, such as if they "arise wholly from some external, independent, and personal motive". If there is doubt as to whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment, the court held, then the issue should be resolved by the jury, not decided by the judge prior to trial.