Interior Electric Incorporated Nevada v. T.W.C. Construction, Inc.
2:18-cv-01118
D. Nev.Feb 12, 2020Background
- Interior Electric (electrical subcontractor) developed an original AutoCAD electrical-plan template and obtained a copyright registration for it and for nine project plans.
- T.W.C. was Interior Electric’s long-time general contractor; in 2017 T.W.C. solicited two employees (Baquerizo and Anderson) to form a competing electrical subcontractor and funded their new venture.
- After Interior Electric fired those employees, T.W.C. had the new subcontractor complete nine ongoing projects and withheld $599,936.24 in payments to Interior Electric.
- Interior Electric alleges the employees and others copied and used its copyrighted plans on those nine projects; Prologis (property owner) contracted T.W.C. for four projects and received copies of emails and plans.
- Interior Electric filed an amended complaint asserting 22 claims; T.W.C., Baquerizo, and Prologis moved to dismiss various claims. The court denied Baquerizo’s motion, granted in part T.W.C.’s motion (dismissing certain claims against officers Ryba and Wilmer with leave to amend), and granted Prologis’s motion (dismissing certain claims against Prologis with leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate-officer liability (Ryba & Wilmer) | Officers personally solicited and funded competing venture, so are individually liable on tort and conspiracy claims | Officers argued they are not individually liable for corporate debts absent alter-ego; actions were corporate acts | Officers may be sued individually for torts they commit; court denied dismissal on corporate-officer ground but dismissed civil-conspiracy claim against them for failure to plead a viable underlying tort (leave to amend) |
| Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage | Ryba and Wilmer individually interfered by funding and soliciting employees | T.W.C. and officers argued agents acting within scope cannot be third-party interferers and T.W.C. was a party to the contracts | Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed claim against T.W.C.; court dismissed the claim against Ryba and Wilmer because allegations show they acted within corporate scope and not with malice or outside authority (leave to amend) |
| Copyrightability of the AutoCAD template | Template and project plans contain original pictorial/graphic elements and are registered; thus protected | Baquerizo argued the template is an uncopyrightable technical drawing or lacking originality | Copyright registration creates prima facie validity; court found the template plausibly contains the minimal originality required and denied Baquerizo’s motion to dismiss |
| Claims against Prologis (unjust enrichment; civil conspiracy; aiding & abetting) | Prologis knew of Interior Electric’s early work and received plans/emails, so knowingly benefited and aided infringement/conspiracy | Prologis said it was merely a property owner/general-contractor hirer and being copied on emails does not show intent or knowing assistance | Court found allegations insufficient to infer intent or knowing assistance; dismissed unjust enrichment, civil-conspiracy, and aiding-and-abetting claims against Prologis without prejudice and gave leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim beyond speculative allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (courts accept well-pled facts but not legal conclusions when assessing Rule 12(b)(6))
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (copyright requires minimal originality; "creative spark")
- United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C & J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) (copyright registration is prima facie evidence of validity)
- Guilfoyle v. Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., 335 P.3d 190 (Nev. 2014) (elements and intent requirement for civil conspiracy under Nevada law)
- Semenza v. Caughlin Crafted Homes, 901 P.2d 684 (Nev. 1995) (corporate officer may be individually liable for torts he commits)
- Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 971 P.2d 1251 (Nev. 1999) (civil-conspiracy requires agreement to commit a viable tort)
- Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., 283 P.3d 250 (Nev. 2012) (elements of unjust enrichment)