Warren v. Guerrero

Background

Cameron Warren, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued nearly 50 former coworkers who had worked with him at a Manhattan retail store that closed in 2019. Warren alleged that a non-defendant, Alex Contreras, photographed him at Contreras’s home in 2018 and later disseminated the photograph at their workplace. Warren did not allege that any defendant took or further disseminated the photograph.

Warren believed that some former coworkers received money from their former employer, Philips Van Heusen Corporation, in exchange for nondisclosure agreements. He suspected that those agreements covered the photograph or related matters, but the opinion states that he pleaded no facts explaining the basis for that conclusion. Warren asserted federal and state trade-secret claims, a New York unfair-competition claim, and claims that the court interpreted as unjust-enrichment claims. He sought more than $75,000 in damages and injunctive relief.

The court had previously directed Warren to amend his original complaint and had ruled that his federal trade-secret and copyright claims were deficient. Warren filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2022, and requested permission to amend again and asked the court to seek pro bono counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the photograph did not qualify as a trade secret under either the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act or New York law. Although Warren alleged that the photograph was taken without his permission and showed parts of his body he wanted to keep private, the court explained that it was not financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information. It also was not a business process or device that gave anyone a competitive advantage. The court therefore concluded that Warren failed to state a federal or state trade-secret claim.

The court also dismissed the unfair-competition claim. Under New York law, that claim generally requires bad-faith misappropriation of another’s work or spending, along with actual or likely confusion about the source of goods. The court found that Warren did not allege that the defendants were his business competitors or that they tried to confuse purchasers about the origin of goods.

The court treated Warren’s references to unjust enrichment as an attempt to assert that claim. It concluded that Warren had not alleged that he performed labor or services directly for the defendants. Any payment the defendants may have received for signing nondisclosure agreements would have been for their own agreement to engage in or refrain from conduct, not payment for Warren’s photograph or labor. He therefore failed to state an unjust-enrichment claim.

Rulings and disposition

The court dismissed Warren’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It denied Warren’s request to make proposed changes or to amend the complaint again, finding that the proposed changes would not cure the deficiencies and that further amendment would be futile.

The court’s conclusion states that Warren’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel, along with any other pending requests, was denied as moot. The order closed the case under this docket number. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.