The Virginia Business Litigation Blog

August 12, 2013

Business Tort Case Moves Forward Against Virginia Company

AWP, Inc. is engaged in the business of traffic control solutions for road construction sites and emergency situations. AWP alleges that Shawn Watkins, a former employee, began his own traffic control business, Traffic Control Solutions, LLC (TCS) while still working at AWP, and that he misappropriated information he obtained from his position at AWP such as the identity, needs and issues of customers, pricing, and protocols and methodologies for traffic control. AWP deems this information protected trade secrets. Watkins also allegedly solicited four AWP employees to join him at TCS. AWP prepared to sue Watkins but settled prior to litigation, with Watkins agreeing to cease TCS operations, never work with an AWP competitor, and turn over all AWP property. Watkins also signed an affidavit stating that he was instrumental in creating TCS and had access to AWP’s trade secrets which he used without permission to underbid AWP on jobs and misappropriate AWP customers.

Instead, AWP sued its competitor Commonwealth Excavating, Inc. and its president, Ira Biggs. AWP claimed that Watkins approached Biggs and offered to sell AWP’s trade secrets and equipment for $45,000. Commonwealth allegedly offered to hire the four AWP employees who left for TCS, and it offered Watkins an $85,000 salary which Watkins refused for fear of violating his non-compete agreement. AWP believes that Watkins and Biggs plotted to have Commonwealth take over at least four of AWP’s customers, but the complaint does not state whether any of the customers accepted the offer. The complaint contains counts for common law conspiracy, statutory business conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secrets under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA), tortious interference with contract or business relationships and unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must show more than a mere possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate enough factual matter which, if accepted as true, states a plausible claim for relief. In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, a court will accept factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but threadbare recitations of the elements of a cause of action are not sufficient and must be supported by sufficient facts.

August 5, 2013

Remedies Scrutinized in Trade Secrets Case Even After Default

by Lee E. Berlik

The allegations in Autopartsource, LLC v. Bruton presented a fairly egregious case of stolen trade secrets. Due to a defendant’s failure to answer, those allegations were deemed true. As remedies, Autopartsource sought $1,131,801.55 in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages (the statutory maximum), $59,409.72 in attorneys’ fees and costs, a worldwide production injunction to last seven years, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the use of Autopartsource’s trade secrets. The court held an evidentiary hearing and ruled that while Autopartsource was entitled to an injunction and substantial damages, the scope of the requested injunction would be narrowed and the damages would be reduced.

Autopartsource designated employee Stephen Bruton to spearhead the company’s effort to develop business in China, where it sources its automobile parts. Bruton secretly developed his own competing business, BBH Source Group, and misappropriated Autopartsource’s trade secrets in doing so, using them to redirect prospective Autopartsource customers to BBH. After Autopartsource discovered Bruton’s actions and fired him, Bruton broke into an Autopartsource facility and deleted proprietary information from its database.

Autopartsource sued for violation of the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, tortious interference with business expectancy, and tortious interference with contract. The court found that Autopartsource had established liability on all three theories but that, under Virginia law, it could not recover damages under both VUTSA and its claim for tortious interference with business expectancy, as a party cannot receive damages for a common law tort if the underlying conduct involves an intentional misappropriation of a trade secret.

July 22, 2013

When Negotiating Contract, Trying to Slip in Changes Undetected Can Lead to Fraudulent Inducement Claim

by Lee E. Berlik

One common problem when negotiating contracts is keeping track of all the revisions the other side makes without having to re-read the entire contract again and again. Microsoft Word’s “track changes” feature is helpful but can still lead to confusion when not used properly. Even when the other contracting party tells you that the only changes are to the language on a particular page, can you really trust that person? A recent opinion from the Western District of Virginia suggests that you can, to a certain extent, because if the other party tries to slip in a material change without alerting you to it, the other party may be liable for fraudulent inducement.

A party can be fraudulently induced to enter a contract when a false representation or omission of a material fact is made knowingly with the intent to mislead and the party signs the contract in reliance on the representation. Concealment of a material fact can constitute a false representation where evidence shows a knowing and deliberate decision not to disclose a material fact.

In Whalen v. Rutherford, Jacqueline Whalen and James Rutherford maintained a romantic and business relationship for over twenty years. In 1985, they formed W&R Partnership to manage a horse farm and breeding operation. According to the Partnership Agreement, Whalen was the managing partner and would receive a salary to be determined by both parties commensurate with her time and effort. Rutherford agreed to move in with Whalen and finance the construction of a new house on the property, so Whalen granted Rutherford a joint tenancy interest in the property.

July 21, 2013

Not Every Unpleasant Statement Is Actionable in Court

by Lee E. Berlik

Bettina Jordan works for the United States Postal Service. In 2012, she filed two separate actions against the Postmaster General, Patrick Donahoe, alleging discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. In February of 2012, Jordan suffered a physical injury on the job and accepted a limited duty assignment. She has collected workers’ compensation benefits since the injury. She did not appreciate, however, the manner in which the USPS handled her workers’ compensation reimbursement, so she filed a third lawsuit, alleging retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. All three cases were filed in the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia.

USPS employees seeking workers’ compensation must submit periodic documentation to the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) showing their continued eligibility for benefits. Jordan was entitled to compensation based on a four-hour work day due to her limited duty assignment, but because of an administrative error, USPS had been compensating her for an eight-hour work day through July 2012. In August of 2012, an OWCP claims manager changed Jordan’s claim forms to accurately reflect the number of work hours and, upon finding backdated and inconsistent medical notes Jordan had submitted, undertook a reevaluation of Jordan’s claim in September 2012. The claims manager wrote to Jordan questioning her submissions and asking for clarification. She also sent the letter to a Department of Labor Claims Examiner and the USPS Manager of Health and Resource Management.

Jordan did not appreciate being asked these questions. She sued, claiming that the way in which USPS handled her workers’ compensation reimbursement was in retaliation for her discrimination claims. She also contended that the claim manager’s letters defamed her and that they intentionally inflicted emotional distress. The USPS, through Mr. Donahoe, moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion.

July 15, 2013

Negligent Breach of Contract Is Not a Tort in Virginia

by Lee E. Berlik

Although parties can sometimes demonstrate both breach of contract and a tortious breach of duty, the duty in such cases must arise separate from the contractual duty, and negligent performance of a contract cannot form the basis for a tort claim. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia emphasized this point in American Legion John Radcliff Post 164 v. BB&T Corporation.

Debra Horn was president of the American Legion Ladies Auxiliary Unit 164. Her husband, Mack Horn, was a member of American Legion John Ratcliff Post 164. Over the course of a year, the Horns made several transactions, including writing checks, making expenditures and withdrawals and closing accounts that Post 164 did not authorize. Specifically, Post 164 had a Certificate of Deposit with BB&T Bank. Without the Post’s permission, BB&T allowed Mr. Horn to withdraw $15,447.15 from the CD and Mrs. Horn to withdraw $29,975 and to close the CD by withdrawing $49,975. BB&T processed a deposit of $49,975 to a checking account in Post 164’s name and a check in the amount of $35,000 from Post 164’s checking account into an account that the Horns controlled. The Horns used the funds for their own personal benefit.

Post 164 sued BB&T for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint also contained a claim entitled “Statutory Claim” and asked for punitive damages. BB&T argued that the action was essentially a breach of contract claim and asked that all the other claims be dismissed. BB&T also asked the court to strike Post 164’s claim for punitive damages.

June 14, 2013

Parties Cannot Stipulate to Existence of Federal Question Jurisdiction

by Lee E. Berlik

A federal court has jurisdiction over causes of action created by federal law and over cases in which the plaintiff’s right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. If a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court, even if the parties both argue in favor of keeping the case in federal court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia addressed this issue two days ago in PORTCO v. NISH.

The AbilityOne Program requires government agencies to procure certain goods and services from nonprofit companies that employ severely disabled people. A committee administers the program and determines what products and services are appropriate and which nonprofit agencies meet the criteria necessary to participate in the program. NISH is a nonprofit agency that facilitates the committee’s distribution of government contracts among other nonprofits. NISH evaluates the qualifications and capabilities of nonprofits, provides information to the committee, recommends products and services for procurement to the committee, and allocates government orders among nonprofit agencies after the committee approves them. NISH follows the committee’s policy guidelines and also has its own Best Practices which include notifying the nonprofit agencies of available opportunities by a posting on its website. According to NISH’s Best Practices, if an agency brings a new project opportunity to NISH’s attention or takes steps to identify such opportunities, that agency will receive the opportunity on a first come first considered basis.

PORTCO alleges that it worked with the Naval Medical Center-Portsmouth Contracting Authority for several years to bring a contracting opportunity to NISH. PORTCO understood NISH’s Best Practices to mean that PORTCO would receive the opportunity. NISH did not recommend PORTCO for the opportunity, and PORTCO contends that this constituted a violation of NISH’s best practices. PORTCO sued NISH in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging federal question jurisdiction.

June 4, 2013

Recent ADA Guidelines on How to Treat Applicants and Employees with Cancer or Intellectual Disabilities

by Guest Blogger

While most people know that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees who have obvious visual, hearing, and physical impairments, how the law relates to employees with cancer and intellectual disabilities can sometimes raise questions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces the employment provisions of the ADA and where an employee must initiate a charge of discrimination before filing a lawsuit, endeavors to answer these questions with its recently issued guidelines on how the ADA applies to employees with these conditions.

For employees living with cancer, the new guidelines discuss when an employer may ask an applicant or employee questions about their cancer, what type of reasonable accommodations employees may need, and handling safety concerns about employees with cancer. An employee who has cancer and is currently undergoing treatment or has a history of cancer has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Misguided assumptions and discrimination abound about an employee’s ability to concentrate and how much leave they will need for treatment and doctor visits. These Guidelines explain in detail who may be told about an employee’s cancer, the various accommodations available from telecommuting to control over the office thermostat, and when an employer may or may not grant the accommodation requested.

The Guidelines characterize “intellectual disabilities” as significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior that may affect a person’s daily social and practical skills such as communication. The EEOC lists several accommodations for employees with intellectual disabilities such as demonstrating what a job entails (not just describing it), reallocation of marginal tasks to other employees, repeating instructions, breaking tasks down into manageable chunks, and the use of detailed schedules for task completion. The EEOC guidelines also discuss, in detail, when an supervisor can ask about a person’s intellectual disability and what may be asked.

May 30, 2013

Removal, Rather Than Procedural Gamesmanship, Is How to Secure Federal Forum

by Lee E. Berlik

The Fourth Circuit clarified last week that after a case is filed in state court, a defendant desiring a federal forum should seek removal rather than file a separate declaratory judgment action in its federal district court of choice. In VRCompliance v. HomeAway, Inc., the court noted that the federal removal statute is the primary avenue for obtaining federal court review of already pending state law claims, and allowing a party to file a case in a federal forum when the same claims are pending in state court would result in a “regime of forum shopping.”

HomeAway, Inc. operates websites that facilitate vacation home rentals. These rentals, unlike the booking of hotel rooms, tend to deprive localities of tax revenue. Eye Street Solutions has developed computer software that can identify vacation homeowners who have not paid locality taxes. Eye Street licensed the software to VRCompliance, LLC, and VRCompliance uses the software to investigate tax compliance on behalf of localities such as the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (“CAST”).

Believing that Eye Street’s software was impermissibly accessing its websites and “scraping” data, HomeAway sent a letter to Eye Street and CAST demanding that CAST’s members stop using the software. HomeAway asserted that the software’s access of HomeAway’s websites violated the terms of conditions of use of the sites and constituted unlawful interference with contractual relations as well as a deceptive and unfair trade practice in violation of state law. HomeAway sent a second letter to CAST and copied CAST’s members, and it sent a letter to Eye Street and VRCompliance reiterating its allegations and threatening legal action unless the companies ceased scraping data from HomeAway’s websites and turned over any data already obtained.

May 20, 2013

Prior to Derivative Suit, Shareholder Demand Must Clearly Identify Wrong and Demand Action

by Lee E. Berlik

A shareholder acting on behalf of a corporation may bring a “derivative suit” against corporate directors and management for fraud, mismanagement, self-dealing or dishonesty. Before bringing such a suit, the shareholder must make a written demand that clearly identifies the alleged wrong and demands the corporation take action to redress it. A court will examine a complaint and a written demand to insure that they are sufficiently connected. A Norfolk Circuit Court recently addressed the sufficiency of a demand letter in Williams v. Stevens and Dornemann.

Alex Williams, Eric Stevens and Karl Dornemann were the sole shareholders of Dogsbollocks, Inc., a corporation that managed restaurants. Williams alleged that Stevens and Dornemann (the defendants) prevented him from involvement with the corporation and refused to give him pertinent corporate information. He also alleged that the defendants developed a restaurant independently. Williams’ attorney sent two letters to the defendants. The first letter demanded access to the corporation’s financial records and requested the name of the corporation’s accounting firm, and the second letter accused defendants of ignoring the first letter and gave the defendants notice that Williams was requesting financial records pursuant to Virginia Code § 13.1-774. Williams later filed a derivative suit. In response to an Amended Complaint, defendants filed a plea in bar, arguing that Williams’ suit was barred because he failed to make a written demand before bringing the derivative action. Williams contended that his two letters fulfilled the demand requirement.

The court considered what components a document must contain in order to satisfy the written demand requirement. No Virginia court had previously addressed the question, so the court looked to rules established in North Carolina, where the demand requirement is almost identical to Virginia’s. Neither state’s statutes specify the form of the demand other than requiring it to be written. North Carolina courts have held that the document should set forth the facts of share ownership and describe the remedy demanded with enough specificity to allow the corporation to correct the problem or bring a lawsuit on its own behalf. See e.g., LeCann v. CHL II, LLC, 2011 NCBC 29 (2011). In North Carolina, emails, sworn affidavits and letters have satisfied the written demand requirement where they identified the allegedly wrongful acts and demanded redress in a clear and particular manner sufficient to put the corporation on notice as to the substance of the shareholder’s complaint.

April 15, 2013

An Unsigned Contract is No Party for Wiz Khalifa

by Lee E. Berlik

Musical artist Cameron Jibril Thomaz, better known as “Wiz Khalifa,” recently saw his breach of contract case against It’s My Party get dismissed. Mr. Thomaz had hired The Agency Group as his booking agent for a new tour which would have included a concert at The Patriot Center in Northern Virginia. The Agency Group asked It’s My Party Inc. (I.M.P.) to promote the concert, and it represented to I.M.P. that Mr. Thomaz would soon release a new album. The Agency Group emailed a contract to I.M.P. and asked I.M.P. to sign and return it to The Agency Group for approval and signature by Mr. Thomaz. The contract provided that it would not be binding unless signed by all parties. The contract was never signed.

Mr. Thomaz’ release of a new album was crucial to I.M.P.’s interest in promoting the concert because it did not believe he could attract a sufficient number of fans to warrant his appearance at the venue without the support of a new album. I.M.P. asserted that the parties tentatively agreed upon a date for the concert and the terms of I.M.P.’s promotion of the concert, but it denied having committed to promote the concert.

Mr. Thomaz argued that the parties entered into a contract for him to perform a live concert and that he relied on I.M.P.’s representations in turning down an opportunity to perform on the same date at a different venue using a different promoter. According to Mr. Thomaz, I.M.P. partially performed the contract by advertising, promoting and marketing the concert. He also contends that he partially performed the contract but that I.M.P. refused to pay him any money and canceled the concert after fans already had purchased tickets. I.M.P. asserted that it declined to execute the contract but agreed to reschedule the concert because Mr. Thomaz’s album release was delayed. The Agency Group and I.M.P. agreed to sell tickets to the concert before finalizing the agreement, but as I.M.P. had predicted, sales tanked in the absence of the album release. The parties were unable to come to mutually agreeable terms, and I.M.P. ultimately cancelled the concert and withdrew its offer to promote it. Mr. Thomaz sued I.M.P. for breach of contract and I.M.P. moved to dismiss the complaint.

The VirginiaBusiness Litigation Blog