Wescott v. Block

Background

Carl A. Wescott filed a complaint against Robert J. Block, Monette Stephens, Terry Szucsko, Milla Lvovich, and Lvovich & Szucsko, P.C. He alleged that Stephens and Szucsko arranged for Block, who had worked as a paralegal in the office of Wescott's former attorney Robert D. Shearer, to disclose confidential and privileged information. Wescott also alleged that the defendants used information concerning Salveo Capital to interfere with money he expected to earn and with his child-support payments.

Wescott applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court found that he satisfied the financial eligibility requirement and granted the application. Because Wescott declined to consent to a magistrate judge conducting all proceedings, the court issued a report and recommendation and ordered reassignment to a district judge.

Screening standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court must screen a complaint filed without prepayment of fees and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court explained that the complaint needed enough factual detail to make the alleged legal violations plausible. It also noted that a self-represented litigant's complaint is read generously, but still must contain sufficient facts.

Claims against Lvovich and the law firm

The court found that the complaint contained no specific facts about Milla Lvovich or Lvovich & Szucsko, P.C., apart from general agency-based allegations. It therefore recommended dismissal without prejudice of all claims against those defendants because the complaint did not sufficiently allege that they were liable for the alleged conduct.

Trade-secret claims

Wescott asserted claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The court held that he did not identify the alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity or allege that the information belonged to him. The complaint referred generally to nonpublic, sensitive financial information related to an initial public offering, but did not describe the information sufficiently to distinguish it from generally known information. The court recommended dismissal of these claims with leave to amend.

Debt-collection claims

Wescott alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court found that he did not adequately describe the consumer debt allegedly being collected or explain why the defendants qualified as debt collectors. The court also noted that the alleged conduct appeared to have occurred in 2018 and 2019, while neither statute generally permits claims filed more than one year after the violation. The court recommended dismissal of these claims with leave to amend.

Tort claims

The court recommended dismissal with leave to amend of Wescott's intrusion-upon-seclusion claim because he did not describe the communications or materials allegedly disclosed well enough to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

The court recommended dismissal with leave to amend of the intentional-interference-with-contract claim because Wescott did not describe his contract with Salveo, his role under that contract, how the defendants disrupted Salveo's performance, or how they intended to cause that disruption.

The court also recommended dismissal with leave to amend of the intentional and negligent interference claims involving prospective economic advantage. Wescott did not plausibly allege that the defendants intended to disrupt or negligently affected the relationship, and he did not support his assertion that the Salveo relationship would probably have produced $255,000.

The court recommended dismissal with leave to amend of the abuse-of-process claim. Wescott alleged that the defendants filed a petition for an assignment order in family court to deprive him of money and interfere with child-support payments, but he did not allege that the family court issued such an order or explain how it was misused.

The court recommended dismissal with leave to amend of the fraudulent-concealment claims. Wescott did not provide the specific facts required for fraud allegations, including the nature of the alleged bargain, the information allegedly disclosed, how he learned of the bargain, or the contents of the emails he referenced.

Finally, the court recommended dismissal of the aiding-and-abetting-breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. Wescott did not identify a specific fiduciary-duty violation by Shearer or Block under applicable Illinois professional-conduct rules, or explain what information they had a duty to keep confidential and how the defendants assisted a specific violation.

Disposition

The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended that it be dismissed with leave to amend. Wescott was directed to file a first amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by May 18, 2022. The case-management conference set for May 4, 2022 was vacated, and the case was reassigned to a district judge. Any party could object to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served.

Judge

Judge Edward Chen is identified in the supplied case metadata.