Christopher McIntyre v. Bp Exploration and Production
697 F. App'x 546
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- McIntyre alleged he provided BP an idea that BP used to cap an undersea oil well blowout and sued for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, misuse of confidential information, fraud, and related claims.
- The district court dismissed his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); McIntyre appealed the dismissal of the claims that he supplied the capping idea.
- McIntyre conceded BP extensively modified or replaced any ideas he provided.
- He failed to allege that he disclosed ideas confidentially, that he maintained secrecy, or that a fiduciary relationship existed.
- He also failed to plausibly plead inducement to rely on BP representations (e.g., causing him to delay or forgo patenting).
- The district court denied leave to amend, concluding defects could not be cured; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quasi-contract / unjust enrichment — did McIntyre confer a benefit on BP? | McIntyre: He gave BP the idea used to cap the well, entitling him to restitution. | BP: No concrete, developed idea was conferred; no plausible benefit shown. | Dismissed — no plausible allegation of an actual, usable benefit. |
| Misuse of confidential information — did McIntyre disclose ideas in confidence / owe secrecy? | McIntyre: He shared ideas that BP used; context (emergency) implied confidentiality. | BP: No confidential disclosure pleaded; no fiduciary relationship; no reasonable steps to keep secrecy alleged. | Dismissed — no plausible confidential-disclosure or secrecy allegations. |
| Fraud / fraudulent inducement — did BP induce reliance causing loss (e.g., not patenting)? | McIntyre: BP induced him to believe ideas were not patentable, causing delay/forgo patent. | BP: No plausible facts showing inducement or justifiable reliance. | Dismissed — failure to plead inducement and justifiable reliance. |
| Dismissal with prejudice / leave to amend — should dismissal be without leave? | McIntyre: Could cure defects with amendment. | BP/District Court: Defects were fundamental and not curable. | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in denying further amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Reeves v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 926 P.2d 1130 (Alaska 1996) (requirement that ideas be sufficiently developed to constitute a conferable benefit)
- Reeves v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 56 P.3d 660 (Alaska 2002) (confidential-disclosure and trade-secret principles)
- Munn v. Thornton, 956 P.2d 1213 (Alaska 1998) (fiduciary-relationship requirement for certain confidentiality claims)
- Shehata v. Salvation Army, 225 P.3d 1106 (Alaska 2010) (fraud requires inducement of justifiable reliance)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for denying leave to amend)
- Arctic Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Raleigh, Schwarz & Powell, 956 P.2d 1199 (Alaska 1998) (elements for negligent misrepresentation/omission)
- Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (arguments not raised in opening brief are waived)