PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas
2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK
| D. Nev. | Mar 28, 2025Background
- Dr. Laila Mintas was CEO of PlayUp Inc. ("PlayUp US"), a U.S. subsidiary of PlayUp Ltd. ("PlayUp AUS"), from 2019 to 2021.
- Mintas’s employment ended after her second contract expired; PlayUp US declined to renew her contract amid ongoing acquisition negotiations with FTX.
- PlayUp US alleges Mintas derailed the FTX deal ($450 million acquisition of PlayUp AUS); Mintas contends CEO Daniel Simic was responsible for its failure.
- PlayUp US sued Mintas for tort and contract claims; Mintas counterclaimed, including defamation and wage law violations.
- All claims against PlayUp AUS were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; multiple cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion for partial final judgment were filed.
- The court ruled on standing (PlayUp US’s), privilege, elements of various torts, breach of contract, and FLSA exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Seek FTX Deal Damages | PlayUp US lost market access, licensure, and reputation after FTX deal fell through | PlayUp US suffered no distinct injury; only PlayUp AUS lost out on FTX acquisition proceeds | PlayUp US lacks standing; all claims against Mintas dismissed |
| Abuse of Process | Sought legitimate protection by pursuing litigation | TRO was used as pretext for a smear campaign | No willful act; claim dismissed |
| Defamation Per Se & False Light | Statements privileged as part of litigation/related interest | Statements to media and others not privileged; statements were knowingly false | Litigation privilege inapplicable; triable claims survive on defamation/false light |
| Wage & Hour Exemption (FLSA/State) | Mintas was a salaried, executive employee exempt from wage claims | She was not regularly paid a salary; no exemption applies | No exemption; claims for wages post-5/13/20 proceed |
| Breach of Contract & Unjust Enrichment | Mintas was paid, received equity per contract, legal remedies adequate | Not paid in regular salary, not awarded all shares per contract | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment; unjust enrichment barred by valid contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (sets out requirements for Article III standing)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (sets out Rule 54(b) standards for partial final judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (discusses policy against piecemeal appeals under Rule 54(b))
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (allocates burden in summary judgment proceedings)
- Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 851 P.2d 459 (defamation per se; damages presumed)
- Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 825 P.2d 588 (elements of fraud claim in Nevada)