Warren v. Guerrero

Background

Cameron Warren, representing himself, filed five substantially identical complaints against Quendry Guerrero, Chennel Hosein, Karen Bowden, Emma Blanco, and Gustavo Guity. Each complaint asserted one claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, a federal law allowing the owner of a qualifying trade secret to sue for misappropriation. Warren alleged that each defendant had been offered a nondisclosure-agreement equivalent involving payment to control information about an iPhone Live Photo of a sexual nature. He sought damages and an injunction requiring discovery of other parties who allegedly agreed to similar arrangements.

Rulings on filing-fee applications and screening

The court granted Warren’s applications to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he received that status, the court was required to screen the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.

The court did not enter a dismissal. Instead, it issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Warren to explain why the cases should not be dismissed. The court gave him until January 14, 2022, to file in each case either an amended complaint addressing the identified problems or a response arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient.

Why the court questioned the claims

The court concluded that Warren had not alleged facts supporting the required elements of a trade-secret claim. In particular, he did not allege facts showing that the photograph was a “trade secret” under the statute: information kept secret through reasonable measures and having actual or potential economic value because it was not generally known or readily ascertainable. He also did not allege that any defendant misappropriated the photograph or another trade secret. The complaints alleged only that each defendant was offered an agreement, without alleging that a defendant accepted it or acquired, disclosed, or used a trade secret.

The court also questioned personal jurisdiction, which is a court’s authority to exercise power over a particular defendant. The court stated that each defendant was located in New York and that Warren had alleged no connection between the defendants and California, including no connection related to the claims.

Finally, the court questioned venue, meaning whether the cases were filed in a legally proper federal district. Warren had not alleged a connection to the Northern District of California based on either the defendants’ residence or the events underlying his claims. The court stated that dismissal, or possibly transfer to another district, could be appropriate for improper venue.

Effect of the order

Warren was required to include the relevant caption and civil case number and the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page of any amended complaint. The court also referred him to a local help desk that offers basic assistance to people representing themselves but does not provide legal representation. If Warren did not respond in a case, or if his response did not address the deficiencies, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. Judge Spero’s order therefore granted the filing-fee applications and required a response; it did not itself dismiss the complaints.