82 F. Supp. 3d 344
D.D.C.2015Background
- CAIR Action Network and CAIR Foundation sue Chris Gaubatz, his father Paul Gaubatz, CSP, Brim, Savit, Pavlis, SANE, and Yerushalmi in DC District Court for Wiretap, DC Wiretap, and Stored Communications Act claims plus various DC common law claims.
- Chris allegedly interned at CAIR under an assumed identity to access and remove internal CAIR documents and to record private conversations without consent.
- The court previously granted in part and denied in part a summary-judgment motion, requiring a damages-focused notice for remaining state-law claims.
- The renewed motion addressed six state-law claims: conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, unjust enrichment, fraud, and trade-secret misappropriation.
- The court granted summary judgment on conversion, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and trade-secret misappropriation, and denied/withheld on trespass against Chris but granted trespass dismissal for the other defendants.
- Ownership of documents was pivotal: the court already found the documents largely belonged to CAIR-F, not CAIR-AN, affecting the conversion analysis; ultimately, the court found no cognizable damages supporting most claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion viability | CAIR-F ownership and deprivation of documents supported conversion | Documents did not belong to CAIR-AN; no injury shown | Conversion claim fails; summary judgment granted for all defendants |
| Breach of fiduciary duty damages | Breach caused injuries; punitive damages sought | No cognizable injury shown; punitive damages require actual damages | Breach of fiduciary duty claim failed; summary judgment for all defendants |
| Trespass liability | Chris trespassed via entry and overstepped consent; others liable as conspirators | Aiding/abetting not recognized; civil conspiracy required underlying tort | Trespass survives against Chris; summary judgment for all other defendants granted on trespass |
| Unjust enrichment | CAIR-F conferred benefit via internship; others benefited from scheme | No quantifyable or relatable benefit to each defendant; CAIR-F did not intend to pay | Unjust enrichment claims fail; summary judgment granted for all defendants except Chris on this count |
| Fraud damages basis | Damages (including reputational) supported fraud claim; punitive damages possible | No record basis for actual damages; reputational damages disclaimed | Fraud claim fails; punitive damages not available; summary judgment on fraud for all defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenpeace, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 97 A.3d 1053 (D.C. 2014) (conversion damages limited to loss of use; value at time of conversion)
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of D.C., 61 A.3d 662 (D.C. 2013) (definition and elements of conversion)
- Maxwell v. Gallagher, 709 A.2d 100 (D.C. 1998) (nominal damages requirements for punitive awards)
- Feld v. Feld, 783 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2011) (damages basis for punitive awards in fiduciary claims)
- Saucier v. Countrywide Home Loans, 64 A.3d 428 (D.C. 2013) (civil conspiracy requires underlying tort and agreement)
- Desnick v. American Broadcasting Cos., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995) (entry consent, misrepresentation impact on trespass)