Skyline Risk Management, Inc. v. Legakis

Background

Skyline Risk Management, Inc. sued Yannis Legakis and Laconic Risk Solutions after Legakis left Skyline. Skyline alleged that Legakis took clients and property and defamed Skyline. Legakis had worked with Skyline as an independent contractor, and the court treated as admitted that Legakis and Skyline’s former president, Anthony Kammas, had agreed that Legakis could take his clients if he left. Legakis told Skyline in July 2020 that he planned to move his bonding accounts and asked how to handle his laptop, files, and access to Skyline’s computer system. Skyline did not respond to those requests or tell him that he could not access the system. Skyline’s access to the system was not disabled until the end of August 2020.

Skyline amended its complaint twice, but later withdrew its trade-secrets claims and unjust-enrichment claim. Legakis moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims against him. Neither party moved for summary judgment on Legakis’s counterclaims.

Why the Court Treated Skyline’s Facts as Uncontested

Under the court’s local rule, a party opposing summary judgment must respond to the moving party’s numbered statement of material facts. Skyline did not file the required counterstatement. Its brief contained very few record citations, and its principal’s declaration included unsupported assertions and legal conclusions. The court therefore treated Legakis’s well-supported factual statements as admitted for purposes of the motion.

The court also criticized Skyline’s limited discovery, repeated failures to follow court orders, failure to appear for depositions, and failure to respond to many of Legakis’s arguments. The court concluded that Skyline had not produced evidence sufficient for a jury to find in its favor.

Claims Decided

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court granted summary judgment for Legakis on Skyline’s claim under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The evidence showed that Legakis had authorization to access Skyline’s systems: Skyline did not revoke his access or tell him that access was forbidden before the system was disabled. The court also explained that accessing information for an improper purpose does not by itself violate the statute when the person was otherwise authorized to access that information.

Conversion. The court granted summary judgment on Skyline’s claim that Legakis wrongfully took or retained its laptop or files. The court found no evidence that Skyline demanded their return, which was required under the circumstances because Legakis’s initial possession was lawful. The court also found no evidence that Legakis interfered with Skyline’s right to possess the client information.

Unfair competition. The court granted summary judgment on Skyline’s misappropriation-based unfair-competition claim. Skyline did not provide evidence of bad faith. The admitted facts showed that Legakis was allowed to take his clients, told Skyline that he intended to move accounts, and received no objection from Skyline.

Breach of fiduciary duty and faithless servant. The court granted summary judgment on both claims. Skyline did not provide evidence that Legakis was its agent or fiduciary. The court treated him as an independent contractor, and testimony from Skyline’s principal suggested that Legakis was not subject to Skyline’s control. The court also found that the evidence did not show that Legakis solicited Skyline’s clients while still working with Skyline or acted improperly by taking clients he had been allowed to take.

Fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation. The court granted summary judgment on these claims. To the extent Skyline relied on allegedly inflated invoices, it did not respond to Legakis’s argument that Skyline was not damaged because it received a share of the commissions. To the extent Skyline instead argued that taking clients was fraudulent, that theory was not pleaded as the basis for these claims. In any event, the court found no false representation or intent to defraud because Legakis and Skyline had agreed that he could take his clients when he left.

Tortious interference with business relations. The court granted summary judgment on this claim because Skyline did not provide evidence that Legakis used wrongful, dishonest, unfair, or improper means. The agreement allowing Legakis to take his clients, and Skyline’s failure to object when Legakis announced his departure, did not establish wrongful interference.

Tortious interference with contract. The court granted summary judgment on this claim because Skyline did not identify a contract with which Legakis interfered and did not respond to Legakis’s argument on that point.

Injurious falsehood. The court granted summary judgment on this claim. Skyline did not support its assertion that Legakis made a false statement. The statement that Legakis was leaving Skyline and taking the bonding business was true. The court also explained that the statement did not denigrate the quality of Skyline’s goods or services, another requirement for an injurious-falsehood claim.

Disposition

Judge Subramanian granted Legakis’s motion for summary judgment on Skyline’s remaining claims. The order did not rule on the merits of Legakis’s counterclaims because neither party moved for summary judgment on them. Those counterclaims will go to trial.