VanDeHey v. Real Social Dynamics, Inc.
2:17-cv-02230
D. Nev.May 7, 2025Background
- The dispute stems from a soured business relationship between Todd Vandehey and Real Social Dynamics, Inc. (RSD), including individual defendants Nicholas Kho, Owen Cook, and Amber Kho, who all operated companies teaching men how to succeed in dating.
- Vandehey co-founded "Valentine Life" with RSD, each holding a 50% interest, and alleges RSD and its owners locked him out of business accounts and dissolved the company without consent, violating the operating agreement.
- Vandehey initially sued for hacking, conversion, and business torts, while RSD counterclaimed, alleging breach, conversion, fiduciary breach, and unauthorized access to emails.
- The case was stayed pending arbitration, which resulted in findings mostly favoring Vandehey, and a partial monetary award, but only between Vandehey and RSD.
- After arbitration, Vandehey amended the complaint to additionally name Valentine Life as a plaintiff, sought new claims, and requested extended discovery.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, citing preclusion, failure to state claims, statutes of limitation, and lack of evidence. Plaintiffs opposed, seeking more discovery and objecting to the magistrate judge’s discovery order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim/Issue Preclusion on Hacking/Conversion | Can sue individuals; not decided in arbitration. | Arbitration bars relitigation; same facts/issues as arbitrated. | Issue preclusion bars Vandehey’s computer-crimes/conversion claims against individuals; not claim preclusion. |
| Sufficiency of Malicious Prosecution Claims | Arbitration was baseless, claim is proper. | Malicious prosecution only applies to criminal, not civil actions. | Dismissed; Nevada law only allows malicious prosecution for criminal proceedings. |
| Fraud Pleading | General allegations sufficient for notice; intent known to defendants. | Conclusory allegations fail heightened (Rule 9) pleading standard. | Dismissed; fails to meet Rule 9(b) particularity; no leave to amend. |
| Statute of Limitations (Unjust Enrichment/Fid. Breach) | Claims timely as Vandehey only recently recognized as controlling owner. | Claims are time-barred; facts known in 2017. | Dismissed as facially time-barred; no valid tolling. |
| Extension of Discovery | Needed more time as claims/parties unresolved until recently. | Plaintiffs were not diligent and delayed without just cause. | Denied. No diligence shown. Magistrate order affirmed. |
| Summary Judgment on Remaining Claims | Facts and evidence to support survive; claims not admitted without answer. | No competent evidence supports claims; burden not met. | Granted for lack of supporting evidence. |
| Abandonment of Counterclaims | Counterclaims remain, justifying litigation. | Claims resolved or no longer pursued post-arbitration. | Deemed abandoned/dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: more than conclusory allegations required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (preclusion principles, issue and claim preclusion)
- LaMantia v. Redisi, 38 P.3d 877 (Nev. 2002) (malicious prosecution in Nevada requires prior criminal proceeding)
- Paradise Palms v. Paradise Homes, 505 P.2d 596 (Nev. 1973) (privity requirement for preclusion in Nevada)
- Bower v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc., 215 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2009) (party asserting preclusion bears burden to prove privity/identity of parties)