Wilcox v. Career Step, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1155

The court grants in part and denies in part Career Step's motion for partial summary judgment, holding the fraud claim time-barred and enforcing the Development Agreement under Utah law.
The Development Agreement provides joint ownership of the Curriculum copyright and includes an integration clause stating it contains the full agreement and supersedes prior ones.
Plaintiff alleged fraudulent inducement (duress/coercion) to sign the July 23, 2003 Agreement and asserted ownership disputes over the copyright.
After termination in 2006, Plaintiff asserted intentional interference with prospective economic relations and abuse of personal identity through continued use of materials.
The court treats copyright infringement as precluded by joint ownership and the integration clause, but analyzes abusive personal identity claims as keeping genuine issues for trial.
The court concludes that the accounting claim is precluded by the Agreement, while the abuse of personal identity claim survives summary judgment scrutiny.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraudulent inducement and statute of limitations	Wilcox argues discovery rule tolled claims; she signed in 2003 and discovered issues later.	Limitations began July 23, 2003; discovery rule does not apply given she read and reviewed the agreement.	Fraud claim time-barred; discovery rule inapplicable.
Copyright infringement by co-owner	Wilcox ownership claims allow infringement action against Career Step.	Agreement grants joint ownership; no infringement between co-owners.	No copyright infringement action lies between joint co-owners.
Accounting for royalties post-termination	Accounting is required for profits from Curriculum after termination.	Agreement survival provisions limit remedies to monetary damages; no accounting.	Accounting precluded as a matter of law; survival clauses foreclose equitable accounting.
Intentional interference with prospective economic relations	Anaya's comments and conduct disrupted Oldham's potential business with Wilcox.	No credible evidence of improper purpose or means; no concrete prospective relationship.	Summary judgment for Defendant on this claim.
Abuse of personal identity	Career Step used marketing materials bearing Wilcox's identity post-termination without consent.	Consent or implied consent and lack of clear revocation; disputed timing of revocation.	Genuine issues of material fact preclude judgment; claim survives partial summary judgment.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (genuine dispute of material fact required to go to trial)
Leigh Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Isom, 657 P.2d 293 (Utah 1982) (elements of intentional interference with prospective economic relations)
Andreini v. Hultgren, 860 P.2d 916 (Utah 1993) (duress/improper threat standard under Restatement approach)
Brinton v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 973 P.2d 956 (Utah 1998) (unpalatable choice and lack of improper threat analysis)
St. Benedict’s Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict’s Hosp., 811 P.2d 194 (Utah 1991) (improper purpose or means standard for interference claims)
Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren, 182 P.3d 326 (Utah 2008) (parol evidence rule and integration clause considerations)