Warren v. Guerrero

Background

Cameron Warren, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Quendry Guerrero and dozens of other defendants. Warren alleged that an individual who was not named as a defendant took an iPhone live photo of him that was sexually explicit and disclosed it to the defendants. He further alleged that the defendants’ former employer paid them between approximately $5,000 and $10,000 each to sign unspecified nondisclosure agreements. Warren characterized those payments and the defendants’ alleged conduct as involving misappropriation of his trade secret.

Warren asserted claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Copyright Act, and New York law for trade-secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment. He sought damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction. He invoked both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Warren paid the filing fees.

Federal claims

The court concluded that Warren did not state a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. A trade secret is protected business, technical, financial, or similar information, and misappropriation generally requires improper acquisition, use, or disclosure. The court held that Warren’s allegations did not plausibly show that the photograph qualified as a trade secret, even though he wanted to keep it private. The allegations also did not show that the defendants used or disclosed the photograph. Instead, Warren alleged that a non-defendant disclosed it to them and that they later received payments connected to nondisclosure agreements.

The court also concluded that Warren could not pursue his copyright-infringement claim as pleaded. Although copyright registration is not required to obtain copyright protection, the court explained that registration is required before bringing an infringement action in federal court. Warren did not allege that the photograph had been registered. The court stated that it would be futile for him to replead the federal copyright and trade-secret claims.

Jurisdiction and state-law claims

The court found that Warren had not adequately pleaded diversity jurisdiction. Warren alleged that he maintained a residence in San Francisco, California, but the court said that this did not establish his state citizenship or legal domicile. He also did not provide sufficient information about the domicile of each defendant. In addition, although he alleged an amount in controversy of approximately $260,000 based on payments to the defendants, the court found it unclear whether those payments were a legally appropriate measure of his damages.

The court held that the photograph did not qualify as a trade secret under New York law, even if Warren wanted it kept private, and stated that his state-law trade-secret claim must therefore be dismissed. It also held that Warren failed to state an unjust-enrichment claim because he did not allege that the defendants received a benefit from services he provided. The court nevertheless granted him leave to replead possible state-law claims and the facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.

The opinion also addresses Warren’s apparent reference to removing state-court claims. It states that a closed state-court matter was not removable and that removal is available to a defendant, not a plaintiff. The opinion says it could not locate other proceedings involving Warren in New York courts.

Order

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Warren leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must completely replace the original complaint and must include the facts and claims Warren wants the court to consider. It must provide, among other things, the citizenship of all parties, facts supporting an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, the relevant events and each defendant’s conduct, his injuries, and the relief requested. The court warned that if Warren did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court denied Warren’s application for permission to participate in electronic filing without prejudice to renewing the request. It stated that separate court permission was not required for him to consent to electronic service. No defendant was required to answer at that time. The court also denied filing-fee waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.